Limited progress in the nutrition quality and marketing of children’s cereals Cereal FACTS 2012: Limited progress in the nutrition quality and marketing of children's cereals Authors: Jennifer L. Harris, PhD, MBA Marlene B. Schwartz, PhD Kelly D. Brownell, PhD Vishnudas Sarda, MBBS, MPH Cathryn Dembek, MBA Christina Munsell, MS, RD Carol Shin, MBA Amy Ustjanauskas, BA Megan Weinberg, MA Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity June, 2012

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following people for their valuable assistance in collecting data and preparing the report: Susannah Albert-Chandhok Kate Barnett Ande Bloom, MS, RD Ryan Gebhard Andrew Lipsman Jenna Lupi Fran Fleming Milici, PhD Grant Olscamp Ashita Soni Thank you to our colleagues at the Rudd Center, especially Andrea Wilson, Megan Orciari, Patrick Mustain, and Tricia Wynne. We thank Cavich Creative, LLC, and Chris Lenz for their assistance in preparing the manuscript and website. Finally, we thank the leadership and staff at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, with special thanks to C. Tracy Orleans, Kathryn Thomas and the rest of the Childhood Obesity Team.

Support for this project was provided by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Rudd Foundation. Table of Contents

Tables and Figures ...... 3 Executive Summary ...... 4 Background ...... 7 Results ...... 9 Overview of cereal market ...... 9 Changes since 2008 ...... 10 Cereal nutrition quality ...... 12 Improvements in nutrition quality ...... 12 Additional nutrition criteria ...... 14 Traditional media advertising ...... 16 Advertising spending ...... 16 TV advertising exposure ...... 17 Internet marketing ...... 21 Website exposure ...... 21 Banner advertising on third-party websites ...... 23 Social media ...... 25 Marketing to Hispanic and black youth ...... 27 Advertising on Spanish-language TV ...... 27 Exposure to TV advertising by black youth ...... 28 Hispanic and black youth visitors to child-targeted websites ...... 28 cereal advertising exposure ...... 31 Conclusion ...... 32 Endnotes ...... 37 Ranking Tables ...... 41 Appendices ...... 50 A. Methods ...... 50 B. Nutrition Profiling Model ...... 57 C. Nutrition and marketing data by cereal and brand ...... 62

Cereal FACTS 2 Tables and Figures

List of Tables Table 1: Child brands ...... 9 Table 2: Family brands ...... 10 Table 3: New varieties of child and family brands ...... 11 Table 4: Changes in nutrition content of child, family, and adult cereals ...... 13 Table 5: Nutrition scores for cereals included on the CFBAI list of products to be advertised to children . . . . . 14 Table 6: Advertising spending on child and family brands by medium and company ...... 17 Table 7: Cereal company-sponsored websites with child content ...... 21 Table 8: Average monthly unique child visitors to cereal company websites by quarter ...... 22 Table 9: Comparisons of child, adolescent, and adult visitors to websites for child brands ...... 22 Table 10: Top third-party youth websites with advertising for child brands ...... 23 Table 11: Average monthly ads viewed on youth websites for child and family brands by quarter ...... 24 Table 12: Exposure to Spanish-language TV ads by Hispanic youth ...... 28 Table 13: Black youth exposure to TV ads for child and family brands ...... 29 Table 14: Hispanic youth visitors to websites with child content ...... 29 Table 15: Black youth visitors to websites with child content ...... 29 Table 16: Child exposure to TV and internet advertising for child and family brands ...... 31

Ranking Tables 1: Brand nutrition ...... 41 2: Advertising spending ...... 43 3: Television advertising exposure ...... 44 4: Website exposure ...... 45 5: Banner advertising exposure ...... 46 6: Social media ...... 47 7: Spanish-language TV ...... 48

List of Figures Figure 1: Nutrition quality improvements for child, family, and adult cereals ...... 13 Figure 2: Nutrition quality of new cereals ...... 14 Figure 3: Additional nutrition criteria for child, family, and adult cereals ...... 14 Figure 4: Cereals meeting IWG nutrient limits on foods marketed to children ...... 15 Figure 5: Trends in advertising spending for child, family, and adult brands ...... 16 Figure 6: Total advertising spending for child and family brands by company ...... 16 Figure 7: Trends in exposure to TV advertising for all cereals by age group ...... 18 Figure 8: Exposure to TV advertising for child, family, and adult brands/company ads by age group ...... 18 Figure 9: Exposure to TV advertising for child and family brands by company and age group ...... 19 Figure 10: Trends in Spanish-language TV advertising spending for child and family brands by company . . . . 27 Figure 11: Brands advertised most to children in 2011 ...... 32 Figure 12: content of cereals in TV ads viewed ...... 35

Cereal FACTS 3 Executive Summary

In 2009, a report from the Rudd Center for Food Methods Policy & Obesity at Yale University, Cereal FACTS, Cereal FACTS presents a comprehensive and independent documented the nutrition quality and marketing of science-based evaluation of cereal-company marketing to cereals to children.1 Three years later – using the children and adolescents from 2008 through early 2012. We same methods as the first report – Cereal FACTS distinguish between brands marketed directly to children (i.e., child brands); those marketed to parents as appropriate 2012 quantifies changes in nutrition and children’s to feed their children and/or families (i.e., family brands); and exposure to marketing for children’s cereals. those marketed to adults for adult consumption only (i.e., The results of the first report were striking. Cereal products adult brands). marketed to children contained 85% more sugar, 65% less We evaluated the nutrient content of 261 ready-to-eat fiber, and 60% more sodium than products marketed to cereals offered by 12 companies in the as of adults. Due to their poor nutritional profiles, not one child- May 2012; compared the quality of child, family, and adult targeted product could be advertised to children on TV in the brands; and evaluated changes in product nutrition versus United Kingdom, and not one qualified to be included in the 2009 and 2006. We utilized an overall Nutrition Profiling U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Women, Infants and Index (NPI) score based on the nutrient profiling system Children (WIC) program. used in the United Kingdom to identify healthy foods that can In addition, children saw more advertising for cereals than be advertised to children on television. for any other food or beverage product. Preschoolers, on To quantify cereal company marketing practices, we average, were exposed to 635 cereal ads on TV in 2008, evaluated media spending, TV advertising, and marketing or 1.7 ads every day. Cereal companies also targeted on the internet, including cereal company-sponsored children on the internet with engaging websites containing websites, advertising on third-party youth websites, and advergames and other branded activities. The most social media. To document young people’s exposure to popular site, Millsberry.com, attracted 387,000 children advertising for individual brands on TV and the internet, we every month who averaged 24 minutes there each visit. licensed syndicated media research data from Nielsen and Banner advertising placed on other children’s websites comScore. and promotions on cereal boxes encouraged children to visit cereal company sites. and Kellogg led in child-targeted marketing, despite their participation in the Changes for the better Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), the food industry self-regulatory program launched in 2006 From 2009 to 2012, cereal companies improved the nutrition to improve the landscape of child-directed advertising.2 of most cereals marketed directly to children. Overall nutritional quality improved for 13 of 16 child-targeted The first Cereal FACTS recommended that General Mills, brands, and the average nutrition score for children’s cereals Kellogg, and Post help improve children’s diets and health improved from 40 out of 100 in 2009 to 43 in 2012. Of the 22 by substantially reducing marketing of their least nutritious different varieties of child-targeted cereals available in both products to children and finding creative ways to encourage 2008 and 2011, ten (45%) reduced the sodium, seven (32%) children to consume the healthful products in their portfolios. reduced sugar, and five (23%) increased fiber. General Mills Since that report was published, cereal companies have improved all of its child-targeted cereals. Companies also promised to do more. Post joined the CFBAI in 2009, and introduced new varieties of children’s brands with somewhat CFBAI progress reports state that General Mills, Kellogg, improved nutrition scores, such as Pebbles Boulders and and Post have enhanced the nutritional profile of products Gluten Free . advertised to kids and complied with strengthened and Cereal companies also reduced some forms of advertising 3 expanded CFBAI core principles. But have these changes directed to children. Most significantly, General Mills and improved the unhealthy food marketing environment that Post discontinued their popular children’s advergame surrounds children? websites: Millsberry.com and Postopia.com. As a result, In light of conflicting reports about the success of industry children’s exposure to cereal company-sponsored websites self-regulation and the nutritional quality of cereals marketed declined by an estimated 100 ads per year, on average. to children, objective and transparent data are necessary. In addition, General Mills banner advertising on third-party The findings presented in this report document limited children’s websites, such as Nick.com and Disney.com, went progress in the nutrition and marketing of children's cereals. down by 43%. Cap’n and Envirokidz Organic also discontinued their child-targeted websites.

Cereal FACTS 4 Executive Summary

On TV, preschoolers’ exposure to ads for all cereals More of the same declined by 6%, and their exposure to ads for child-targeted cereals decreased by 8%. Among 6- to 11-year-olds, TV The net effect of these changes is that cereal marketing ad exposure declined for seven child-targeted cereals, to children in 2012 looks much the same as it did in 2009. including reductions of 66% to 67% for Kellogg Despite improvements in nutritional quality, the cereals and and 16% for General Mills Cookie . Post advertised to children contain 56% more sugar, 52% less stopped advertising on TV. fiber, and 50% more sodium compared with adult-targeted cereals. Companies do offer more nutritious and lower- sugar cereals for children. For example, regular Changes for the worse and Frosted Mini- have some of the highest nutrition scores. However, these products are marketed to parents, At the same time, cereal companies increased advertising not directly to children. Companies’ most nutritious products to children for many of their least nutritious products. are marketed to adults for their own consumption. Children’s exposure to TV ads increased from 2008 to 2011 for seven child-targeted cereals, including Kellogg Froot In addition, children continue to see more ads on TV for Loops (+79%); General Mills Reese’s Puffs (+55%) and ready-to-eat cereals than any other category of packaged 4 (+29%); and Post Pebbles (+25%). Total exposure to food or beverage. In 2011, 6- to 11-year-olds saw more than TV advertising for General Mills child and family brands 700 TV ads for cereals on average (1.9 ads per day), and increased by 10% for preschoolers and by 16% for 6- to preschoolers (2-5 years) saw 595 ads (1.6 per day). Children 11-year-olds. (6-11 years) also saw 53% more cereal ads than adults saw. Almost one-half (45%) of TV ads seen by children promoted Cereal companies also launched new child-targeted five brands: General Mills , Honey websites and increased banner advertising on third-party Nut Cheerios, , and Reese’s Puffs; and children’s websites for individual brands and existing Kellogg . On the internet, child-targeted websites websites. Post introduced PebblesPlay.com to replace remained popular with children. Four advergame sites Postopia.com, and General Mills launched new sites for (AppleJacks.com, CornPops.com, FrootLoops.com, and (HoneyDefender.com) and Cinnamon HoneyDefender.com) averaged more than 100,000 unique Toast Crunch (CrazySquares.com). The number of child child visitors per month during at least one quarter of 2011. visitors to cereal company-sponsored children’s websites increased for eight of ten cereal sites that existed in 2008. In The bottom line is that General Mills, Kellogg, and Post addition, banner advertising for Kellogg child brands nearly continue to aggressively target children with advertising for doubled; General Mills increased banner advertising for cereals such as Reese’s Puffs, Froot Loops, and Pebbles that Honey Nut Cheerios (+185%) and Lucky Charms (+58%) rank at the bottom of their products in nutrition and at the top and began advertising Cinnamon Toast Crunch; and banner in added sugar. The majority of cereal ads seen by children advertising doubled for Post Pebbles. on TV (53%) promote products consisting of one-third or more sugar. One 30-gram serving of these cereals contains Media spending to promote child-targeted cereals totaled as much sugar as 30 grams of Chips Ahoy cookies (3 $264 million in 2011, an increase of 34% versus 2008. cookies). Just 12% of cereal ads seen by children promote Companies spent more to advertise children’s cereals than products with 26% or less sugar, compared with 48% of they spent on adult cereals; whereas in 2008, they had spent ads seen by adults. The top-10 list of cereals advertised 41% more on adult cereals. Adolescents also saw more TV to children in Cereal FACTS 2012 is nearly identical to the ads for these products in 2011 as in 2008, including 35% top-10 list in the first Cereal FACTS. These cereals are not more ads for General Mills children’s cereals. In addition, nutritious foods that companies should encourage children companies increased advertising spending for child and to consume. family brands in magazines (+73%) and the internet (+31%). Finally, black and Hispanic children's exposure to cereal advertising increased from 2008 to 2011. Despite an Signs of things to come? overall decline in TV ads targeting children, black children’s This research also uncovered some new developments in exposure to these ads increased by 8%, with the biggest the marketing of children’s cereals. Cereal companies have increases for Kellogg Froot Loops (+88%) and General Mills begun to introduce new technologically sophisticated forms Reese’s Puffs (+72%). In addition, advertising spending on of child-targeted marketing. In 2011, Kellogg launched a Spanish-language TV more than doubled from $26 million mobile version of its “Race to the Bowl Rally” game from to $65 million. Hispanic preschoolers saw, on average, 90 AppleJacks.com, the first food company child-targeted Spanish-language TV ads for cereals in 2011 (in addition advergame app for smartphones and tablets.5 General to ads on English TV). Kellogg and General Mills launched Mills also tested Quick Response (QR) codes on Honey Nut new Spanish-language TV campaigns for seven brands, Cheerios packages to creative “visual surprises” for children including Froot Loops and Cinnamon Toast Crunch. on cereal boxes.6 In addition, General Mills, Kellogg, and

Cereal FACTS 5 Executive Summary

Post have each launched a campaign to convince parents Recommendations of the nutritional benefits of children’s cereals. Tag lines such as “Give your kids more of what they need to do their Cereal companies have expressed a commitment to foster best. Grow up strong with Big G kids’ cereals.” and “Kellogg public health and be part of the solution to childhood makes Fiber fun!” imply that high-sugar cereals are healthy obesity. However, they cannot do so by making incremental options for children. improvements in the sugar and sodium content of children’s cereals, while continuing to aggressively market their least Kellogg also introduced cereal in 2012, a product nutritious cereals to children as young as two years old. that appears to be targeted to “tweens.” The company Cereals that contain one spoonful of sugar in every three does not list Krave as a product that may be in child- spoons of cereal are not healthful products that children 7 directed advertising. However, children (6-11 years) saw should regularly consume. more TV ads for Krave during the first quarter of 2012 than individuals in any other age group: 11.2 ads, versus 10.6 In the first Cereal FACTS report, we recommended that for adolescents (12-17 years) and 4.9 for adults (18-49 companies replace advertising to children for high-sugar years). These ads appeared during programs such as cereals with advertising for the nutritious products in “SpongeBob,” “Adventure Time,” and “Victorious” that do their portfolios. Our question remains, why don’t cereal not qualify as advertising “primarily directed to children” companies market Frosted Mini-Wheats or regular Cheerios according to industry self-regulation.8 Within a few months, directly to children using cartoon characters and fun, cool Krave also became one of the most popular cereal themes? It may increase corporate profits to convince Facebook pages. From January through March, Krave’s children that they must have Reese’s Puffs or Froot Loops, Facebook page averaged 157,000 unique visitors each but why is it acceptable? 9 month, and 24% of them were children 6-14 years old. QR If General Mills, Kellogg, and Post truly want to help parents codes on boxes of Krave connected children directly to its raise healthy children, they must: Facebook page. • Significantly reduce the hundreds of advertisements for high-sugar cereals that children see every year; and • Use their substantial resources and creativity to find ways to encourage children to consume the healthful products in their portfolios. We urge them to do the right thing for children’s health.

Cereal FACTS 6 Background

In 2009, The Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity com – to attract children to cereal company-sponsored at Yale University issued Cereal FACTS. The report websites. On average, 222 million of these banner ads were viewed on children’s websites each month. quantified the nutritional quality of cereals marketed – and not marketed – to children, as well as the full Further studies documented the effects of these marketing practices. array of practices commonly used to promote these cereals to children and their parents in 2008 and • An experiment examined the effect of serving high-sugar cereals on the nutritional quality of children’s .2 early 2009.1 Children who were served low-sugar cereals consumed The results were striking. Cereal companies aggressively slightly more than one serving of cereal on average (35 g), marketed their least nutritious products to children. The whereas children consumed more than two servings (61 companies did offer healthier products for children, but g) when served high-sugar varieties. Children who ate the they were marketed to parents. The most nutritious cereals, high-sugar cereals also consumed almost twice as much however, were targeted to adults for their own consumption. refined sugar, even though children could add table sugar to the low-sugar cereals. Milk and total calories consumed did Key findings from the 2009 Cereal FACTS report: not differ, but children who ate low-sugar cereals were more • Of the 115 brands of cereals evaluated, 19 brands were likely to put fruit on their cereal. All children reported “liking” marketed directly to children, and 27 were marketed to or “loving” both the low- and high-sugar cereals they chose. parents as appropriate to feed children. • An evaluation of cereal product sales quantified the • Compared to adult cereals, those marketed to children relationship between advertising and sales for different contained 85% more sugar, 65% less fiber, and 60% more target audiences. U.S. households purchased cereals that sodium. were advertised directly to children thirteen times more frequently than non-advertised cereals.3 Purchases of • Although the majority of children’s cereals qualified as family-targeted advertised brands were ten times higher “better for you” according to the Children’s Food and than non-advertised brands, and cereals advertised to Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI) – the food industry’s adults were purchased just four times more frequently. self-regulatory program – they did not meet independent standards for healthful products that should be marketed to • A survey of parents demonstrated that the majority children. Not one could be offered in the U.S. Department misinterpret the meaning of nutrition-related claims, such of Agriculture (USDA) Women, Infants and Children (WIC) as “whole grains,” “fiber,” and “good source of supplemental foods program, and not one could be and vitamin D,” that are commonly placed on packages for advertised to children on TV in the United Kingdom. high-sugar cereals.4 Such claims lead parents to infer that these cereals are more nutritious than other cereals and • Three companies – General Mills, Kellogg, and Post – provide health benefits for their children, including growing spent $156 million per year in advertising for children’s strong bones and making up for low fruit and vegetable cereals. consumption. Parents also indicate that they are more • The average 6- to 11-year-old viewed 721 cereal ads on likely to buy cereals that feature these claims. TV in 2008 and the average 2- to 5-year-old viewed 642 – in spite of pledges by General Mills and Kellogg that they would not advertise to young children. The majority of Food industry actions cereal ads viewed by children (78-79%) promoted child- Cereal companies have promised to improve their children’s targeted cereals, and children saw 5.4 times as many of products. these ads as adults saw. • In October 2009, Post joined the CFBAI and pledged to • Cereal companies sponsored 17 different websites with “participate in changing the nutritional profile of food and child-targeted content, including advergames and other beverage products advertised to children.”5 interactive features to engage children with the brands. Six of these sites – Millsberry.com, Postopia.com, AppleJacks. • In December 2009, General Mills announced that it would com, FrootLoops.com, ReesesPuffs.com, and CornPops. “reduce to single-digit levels of sugar per serving every com – averaged more than 20,000 unique child visitors per cereal advertised to children under 12.”6 The company month. One website, Millsberry.com, attracted more than also vowed that it “strives to be the health leader in every 386,000 unique children on average 2.8 times each month, category in which we compete – and we are committed to and they spent 24 minutes on the site per visit. leading in the cereal category.”7

• Cereal companies also used highly engaging banner ads • In December 2010, Post followed with an announcement placed on third-party children’s websites – including Nick. that it would lower the sugar content of Pebbles cereals to com, Neopets.com, CartoonNetwork.com and Disney. 9 grams per serving, beginning in January 2011.8

Cereal FACTS 7 Background

• In July 2011, Kellogg stated that it was focusing weight (<8 g per 30-g serving) and an interim limit on sodium approximately 50% of its ready-to-eat cereal research of 210 mg per 50-g serving, as well as limits on saturated and development resources on improving the nutritional and trans fats and a requirement that products contain a benefits of cereals advertised to children.9 meaningful contribution of whole grains.18 Proposed marketing standards included expanded definitions of child-targeted In 2010 the CFBAI also implemented changes in core advertising and inclusion of additional types of child-directed advertising principles and standards for all participating marketing, such as packaging and point-of-purchase displays companies.10 in stores, character licensing and other cross-promotions, in- • All participating companies committed that “100% of their school marketing, and event and sports sponsorships.19 child-directed advertising would be for healthier products.” The proposed IWG voluntary principles for marketing food • The CFBAI definition of child-directed advertising was to children were released for public comment in April 2011.20 expanded to include “advertising on video and computer Food industry comments expressed strong objections. games rated EC or Early Childhood, other video games General Mills called the nutrition standards “arbitrary, that are age-graded on the label as being primarily child- capricious, and fundamentally flawed” and claimed, directed, cell phone or PDA marketing that is primarily “Literally all cereals marketed by General Mills would be directed to children under 12,” as well as word-of-mouth barred from advertising – even cereals like Cheerios.”21 advertising “primarily directed to children under 12.” Kellogg responded, “Government-established criteria are unnecessary given the compliance and results industry has • All participants committed to a definition of “advertising collectively shown thus far through self-regulatory pledges.”22 primarily directed to children under 12” as advertising in The CFBAI commented that “the IWG’s specific goals for media with more than 35% children (2-11 years) in the nutrients to limit and for food groups to include exceed audience (or a stricter definition). what reasonably can be accomplished within five years.”23 In July 2011, the CFBAI also announced that participating Food and beverage groups have also spent a reported companies had agreed to new category-specific nutrition $175 million in federal lobbying since 2009.24 In spite of criteria to go into effect by December 31, 2013.11 According widespread support from consumer and public health to the CFBAI, these new criteria will require companies organizations and more than 28,000 write-in comments to reformulate approximately one-third of the products in favor of the IWG proposal (out of 29,000 in total),25 the advertised to children.12 Commissioner of the FTC reported in March 2012 that the IWG standards were no longer an agency priority.26 Questions about industry-initiated improvements Measuring progress In contrast to industry reports of improvements in the In light of conflicting reports about the success of industry children’s food advertising landscape,13 evaluations by self-regulation and the nutritional quality of cereals marketed non-industry researchers demonstrate limited progress. to children, objective and transparent data are necessary. The For example, an analysis of children’s exposure to all food purpose of this report is to quantify improvements reported by and beverage advertising on TV conducted by the Rudd cereal companies and the CFBAI. Using the same methods Center showed that children viewed 7.5% more ads for as the first Cereal FACTS, we identify the cereals marketed cereals in 2010 compared with 2008.14 In addition, Powell directly to children in 2011 (three years later), report and and colleagues from the University of Illinois at Chicago evaluate their nutritional quality and changes in nutrition since reported that 94% of cereal products that appeared in TV 2009, and measure changes in children’s exposure to cereal ads viewed by children in 2009 were high in saturated fat, advertising on TV and the internet (including cereal company- sugar and/or sodium, down slightly from 97% in 2007.15 In sponsored websites, banner advertising on other third-party a December 2011 analysis of the sugar content of children’s children’s websites, and social media) from 2008 to 2011. cereal, the Environmental Working Group, a non-profit Cereal companies have expressed a commitment to be part research organization, reported that 54 of 84 cereals reviewed of the solution to combat childhood obesity and foster public 16 consisted of more than 26% sugar. health.27 In our previous report, we urged General Mills, In an effort to encourage “stronger and more meaningful self- Kellogg, and Post to help improve children’s diet and health regulation,” the U.S. Congress commissioned an Interagency by substantially reducing marketing of their least nutritious Working Group (IWG) of four U.S. federal agencies (Centers products directly to children and finding creative ways to for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], Federal Drug encourage children to consume the healthful products in Administration [FDA], Federal Trade Commission [FTC], and their portfolios. The findings in this report document cereal USDA) to develop a set of voluntary standards on marketing companies’ progress in contributing to these critical public to children.17 The proposed nutrition standards called for health objectives. reductions of sugar in children’s cereals to 26% or less by

Cereal FACTS 8 Results

Overview of cereal market

Cereal market Definitions Company Company name indicated on the cereal package, including companies or divisions owned by a separate parent company (e.g., Quaker and are listed as companies). Brand Marketing unit for a family of cereals (e.g., Fruity and Cocoa Pebbles belong to the Pebbles brand). Cereal Individual cereal or variety (e.g., Fruity and Cocoa Pebbles are listed as separate cereals). Child brand A brand that is marketed directly to children. Family brand A brand that is not marketed directly to children, but is suggested for child or family consumption in marketing communications, including TV ads, websites, and/or product packaging. Adult brand A brand that is only marketed to adults for adult consumption and contains no marketing references to child or family consumption.

We analyzed data for 12 companies, 124 brands and 261 and family brands (eight brands each), followed by Kellogg cereals. Store and other generic brands (e.g., Malt-O-Meal) (five child and three family brands), and Post (two child and and foreign brands (e.g., Nestle, Dorset) were not included. four family brands). Cascadian Farm also offered one child General Mills had 24 brands, followed by Kellogg with 23 brand, and Cascadian Farm, Quaker, Nature’s Path, Kashi, and Post with 13. These three companies comprised 54% of Barbara’s Bakery, and Annie’s offered at least one family all brands and 56% of cereals examined. Barbara’s Bakery, brand. Cascadian Farm (owned by General Mills), Kashi (owned Most child brands were classified as such because they by Kellogg), Nature’s Path, and Quaker (owned by PepsiCo) advertised directly to children on TV in 2011. However, also had five or more cereal brands each. Additional Kellogg Rice and qualified for child-targeted companies in the analysis include Annie’s, Newman’s Own, games on the Rice Krispies website, and two brands qualified Peace Cereal, and . because of tie-ins with licensed characters (Cascadian Farm The majority of cereals (59%) were marketed only to adults Clifford Crunch and General Mills Dora the Explorer). for adult consumption. We identified 16 brands marketed Family brands were classified according to content on the directly to children (i.e., child brands; 11% of all individual company website and/or product packaging indicating that cereals) and 30 additional family brands (30% of cereals) the cereal was for family or child consumption. Several of (see Tables 1 and 2). General Mills promoted the most child

Table 1. Child brands

Company Brand 2008 2011 CFBAI approved* Cascadian Farm Clifford Crunch ✔ ✔ General Mills Cinnamon Toast Crunch ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Dora the Explorer ✔ ✔ Honey Nut Cheerios ✔ ✔ ✔ Lucky Charms ✔ ✔ ✔ Reese's Puffs ✔ ✔ ✔ Trix ✔ ✔ ✔ Kellogg Apple Jacks ✔ ✔ ✔ Corn Pops ✔ ✔ ✔ Froot Loops ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Rice and Cocoa Krispies ✔ ✔ ✔** Disney High School Musical ✔ Hannah Montana ✔ Post Honeycomb ✔ ✔ ✔ Pebbles ✔ ✔ ✔

*September 2011 **Only Rice Krispies was an approved CFBAI product

Cereal FACTS 9 Results

Table 2. Family brands

Company Brand 2008 2011 CFBAI approved* Annie's Bunnies ✔ ✔ Barbara's Bakery Puffins Puffs (formerly Organic Wild Puffs) ✔ ✔ Puffins ✔ ✔ Shredded Oats - Cinnamon Crunch ✔ ✔ Cascadian Farm Cinnamon Crunch ✔ ✔ Honey Nut O's ✔ ✔ Purely O's ✔ ✔ Chocolate O's ✔ Fruitful O's ✔ General Mills Boo Berry (seasonal) ✔ ✔ Cheerios (regular) ✔ ✔ Cheerios (except regular and Honey Nut) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Count Chocula (seasonal) ✔ ✔ Franken Berry (seasonal) ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Kaboom ✔ Health Valley Blast-ems ✔ Kashi Golden Goodness ✔ Kashi Squares (formerly Honey Sunshine) ✔ ✔ Mighty Bites ✔ Kellogg ✔ ✔ Mini-Swirlz ✔ Mini-Wheats ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Cookie Crunch ✔ Nature's Path Envirokidz Organic ✔ ✔ Post Alpha Bits ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Quaker Cap'n Crunch ✔ ✔ Life ✔ ✔ Life Crunchtime ✔

*September 2011 the family brands had been marketed directly to children targeted brands, Cookie Crunch and Mini-Swirlz. Several previously, but we found no evidence that they were of the smaller companies also added new family brands, marketed to children in 2011 (e.g., General Mills Boo Berry including Cascadian Farm Chocolate O’s and Fruitful O’s; and Count Chocula; Kellogg Honey Smacks and Smorz; and Quaker Life Crunchtime; and Kashi Golden Goodness. In Quaker Cap’n Crunch). addition, Kashi discontinued Mighty Bites, and Health Valley discontinued Blast-ems. Rice and Cocoa Krispies was reclassified as a child brand due to the addition of games Changes since 2008 for children on the Rice Krispies website. In contrast, Cap’n With a few exceptions, the child and family brands that Crunch was reclassified as a family brand because the existed in 2008 remained in 2011 (see Tables 1 and 2). child-directed website noted in 2008 was replaced by an General Mills discontinued one brand: Kaboom, its circus- adult-targeted site. themed cereal targeted to families. Kellogg discontinued Table 3 shows new varieties of existing brands introduced four brands, including its Disney-themed cereals (High since the previous Cereal FACTS report. General Mills School Musical and Hannah Montana) and two family- introduced three new varieties of child brands: Cocoa

Cereal FACTS 10 Results

Table 3. New varieties of child and family brands*

Company Cereal brand New variety Child brand Family brand Annie's Annie's Cinnamon Roll Bunny O's ✔ Organic Bunny O's ✔ Barbara's Bakery Puffins Peanut Butter and Chocolate ✔ Multigrain ✔ General Mills Cheerios Cinnamon Burst ✔ Chocolate ✔ Chex Gluten Free ✔ Cinnamon Toast Crunch Frosted Toast Crunch ✔ Cocoa Puffs Brownie Crunch ✔ Cookie Crisp Sprinkles ✔ Kashi Kashi Squares Berry Blossoms ✔ Kellogg Mini-Wheats Frosted/Mixed Berry ✔ Little Bites - Cinnamon Roll ✔ Little Bites - Frosted/Original ✔ Rice Krispies Gluten Free ✔ Post Pebbles Boulders ✔ Marshmallow ✔ Quaker Cap'n Crunch Chocolatey Crunch ✔ OOPS! All Berries ✔

*Cereals introduced after 2008 that were still available in May 2012

Puffs Brownie Crunch, Cookie Crisp Sprinkles, and Frosted (CFBAI) (see Tables 1 and 2); a decline from 41 cereals Toast Crunch (a variety of Cinnamon Toast Crunch). Post in 2009.2 Post joined the CFBAI in 2009 and its Pebbles, also introduced two new varieties of Pebbles, and Kellogg Honeycomb, and Alpha Bits brands were approved for child- introduced Gluten Free Rice Krispies. New family varieties directed advertising, but no new General Mills or Kellogg were more prevalent, including such additions as General brands were added to the list. In addition to discontinued Mills Chocolate Cheerios and Quaker Cap’n Crunch OOPS! brands and varieties, several brands that had been All Berries. approved by the CFBAI in 2009 were removed, including Kellogg Mini-Wheats, , and Mini-Swirls; General Mills As of September 2011,1 21 cereals were included on the list Cookie Crisp; and Quaker Cap’n Crunch. Kellogg included of products approved to advertise to children by companies Rice Krispies, but not Cocoa Krispies or other Rice Krispies in the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative varieties, in its 2011 list of approved products.

Cereal FACTS 11 Results

Cereal nutrition quality

Cereal nutrition quality Definitions Nutrient Profiling Index A measure of overall nutrition quality that takes into account both positive and negative nutrients in (NPI) score foods. Scores range from 0 (very poor) to 100 (excellent). This scoring system is based on a model developed by researchers in the United Kingdom for use in the Office of Communication’s (OFCOM) guidelines to prohibit junk food advertising to children. Women, Infants Guidelines established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to specify products that and Children (WIC) individual states may include in their supplemental food packages for mothers, infants and children guidelines under 5 years. WIC-approved cereals must contain no more than 21.2% of total weight in sugar. U.K. advertising The United Kingdom banned TV advertising to children for food products with an NPI score of less guidelines than 64. CFBAI-approved Products that CFBAI participating companies designate may be included in child-directed advertising. These products must meet nutrition criteria that individual companies establish. Interagency Working Guidelines recommended by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Food and Drug Group (IWG) guidelines Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the USDA for for foods marketed determining foods that are appropriate to market to children and adolescents. Limits include no to children more than 13 grams added sugar and 210 milligrams sodium per 50 grams of cereal, as well as no more than 1 gram saturated fat and 0 grams trans fat per reference amount customarily consumed (RACC). Product reformulation Revisions made to the nutrition content of existing cereals after May 31, 2009. New cereal brands New cereal products introduced after January 1, 2009, independent of previously existing brands. New cereal varieties New products introduced after January 1, 2009 that are extensions of previously existing brands.

We reviewed the nutrition content of 29 child cereals, 79 nutritionally (see Table 4). On average, child brands in 2012 family cereals, and 153 adult cereals, and compared the had an NPI score of 43 and contained 33% sugar, 5.1% fiber, current nutritional make-up of the products to nutrition and 525 mg of sodium (per 100 mg). Child brands contained content as reported in the previous Cereal FACTS report. 56% more sugar, 52% less fiber, and 50% more sodium than Appendix C (Table C1) provides nutrition data for all adult brands. Of the three large cereal companies, Kellogg varieties of child and family brands. Ranking Table 1 ranks child brands had the highest average nutrition scores (46) the 43 child and family brands in our analysis (excluding and Post had the lowest (34). The top three companies had seasonal brands) by average brand NPI score. The majority comparable amounts of sugar in their child brands: 32% for of brands, including 13 of 16 child brands and 13 of 22 Kellogg, 33% for General Mills, and 34% for Post. family brands, improved their average nutrition scores from 2009. Overall nutrition scores improved at the company level as well, with Kellogg exhibiting the greatest improvement Improvements in nutrition quality (+18%). Just one company, Post, had a decline in average Table 4 also displays changes in nutrition content of cereals NPI score (-11%). by child, family, and adult brand level and by company. As in 2009, family brands tended to be more nutritious (17 Nutrition values for 2009 and 2012 include all cereals of the top 20 child and family brands) while child brands available those years, but differences were measured were the least nutritious (14 of the bottom 20). Kellogg Mini- between cereals in existence both years. Wheats retained its top spot with an NPI score of 73. Quaker Across all companies, child, family, and adult brands Cap’n Crunch fell below General Mills Reese’s Puffs as the showed significant improvements in overall nutrition scores. worst-ranking brand, with an average NPI score of 31. Post Among child brands, overall sodium and sugar reductions Pebbles followed closely as the second-worst brand with were statistically significant, but fiber content did not change a score of 33. The 10 worst brands in 2012 were the same significantly. General Mills and Kellogg both significantly ones found in 2009, although the order shifted somewhat. reduced the sodium in their child brands, and General Mills General Mills Dora the Explorer and Cascadian Farm Clifford had a statistically significant reduction in sugar, from 36% Crunch tied for the best child brands, with NPI scores of 52. to 33%. Post child cereals in 2012 had more sugar, less Although family cereals had better nutrition content than fiber, and more sodium than they did in 2009, although the cereals marketed directly to children, cereals that were changes were not statistically significant. Post cereals also marketed to adults for adult consumption remained the best had the most sodium and least fiber of all child cereals.

Cereal FACTS 12 Results

Table 4. Changes in nutrition content of child, family, and adult cereals**

Sugar content Fiber content Sodium NPI score (%) (%) (per 100 mg) # of varieties in 2012 2009 2012 2009 2012 2009 2012 2009 2012 Child brands 29 40 43* 36 33* 5.5 5.1 559 525* General Mills 12 40 44* 36 33* 7.6 5.6 611 555* Kellogg 11 41 46* 35 32 4.6 5.5 525 475* Post 5 42 34 33 34 8.3 2.1 542 558 Other companies 1 54 52 20 27 16.7 10.0 533 533 Family brands 79 51 53* 27 26 6.8 8.3* 470 420* General Mills 25 46 50* 26 25 6.0 7.4* 669 580* Kellogg 13 62 68 28 24 8.0 10.0* 171 77 Post 4 46 46 40 40 6.9 6.9 389 386 Quaker 10 44 43 32 32 5.0 7.4 602 533 Other companies 27 51 55 23 23 8.5 8.9 498 399* Adult brands 153 56 59* 20 21 10.6 10.7* 372 351 General Mills 19 56 58 21 20 13.6 11.8 481 415 Kellogg 34 50 52 24 25 10.6 10.7* 476 465 Post 22 59 61* 20 18 8.0 9.1* 324 287* Quaker 8 53 66* 23 20* 7.5 9.6 290 223 Other companies 70 60 61 18 19 11.5 10.3 310 312

*Significantly different from 2009 value (comparing only varieties that existed in both 2009 and 2012); p<.05 **2009 nutrition values include all varieties that existed in 2009; and 2012 values include all varieties that existed in 2012

Among family brands, General Mills significantly improved Figure 1. Nutrition quality improvements for child, family, and adult cereals* fiber and sodium content, and Kellogg improved fiber content. 60 ■ 2006 Of the brands that existed in 2006, child cereals have seen ■ 2009 consistent improvements in nutrition scores (2006 to 2009 and 50 ■ 2012 2009 to 2012 differences were statistically significant), family brands improved significantly from 2006 to 2012, and adult brands improved from 2009 to 2012 (see Figure 1). The child 40 cereal category has seen a 14% improvement in NPI scores over the last five years, compared to a 12% improvement for family cereals and 5% for adult cereals. In 2012, nutrition 30 scores for child cereals were comparable to nutrition scores for family cereals in 2006. Despite these improvements, a verage NPI scor e large discrepancy remains between nutrition scores of cereals A 20 targeted to children and those targeted to adults. Of the 108 cereals with 2006 data, child products had an average score of 42 in 2012, compared to the average adult brand score of 10 58. We also compared the nutrition information for all products 0 that existed in 2009 to products introduced after January 1, Child brands Family brands Adult brands 2009 (see Figure 2), including 43 new varieties of existing brands and 30 new brands. New varieties of existing child *108 cereals included in the 2006 analysis brands had significantly higher nutritional values compared to existing cereals, averaging an NPI score of 46, compared to the average of 42 for child brands in 2009. New varieties average NPI score of 63, which was significantly higher of existing family and adult brands also had higher NPI than the average of 51 for family brands in 2009. Several of scores than existing cereals, but these differences were not these new family cereals (Kashi Golden Goodness, Mini- statistically significant. No new child brands were introduced Wheats Little Bites varieties, and Annie’s Organic Bunny during this time period, but new family brands had an O’s) achieved healthy NPI scores greater than 62. However,

Cereal FACTS 13 Results

Figure 2. Nutrition quality of new cereals Table 5. Nutrition scores for cereals included on the CFBAI list of products to be advertised to children* 70 ■ All 2009 cereals NPI Score Kellogg General Mills Post ■ New varieties >62 60 ■ New brands 50-62 Corn Pops Rice Krispies 40-49 Apple Jacks Cinnamon Toast Honeycomb 50 Crunch Froot Loops Cocoa Puffs Alpha Bits 40 Frosted Flakes Honey Nut Cheerios Lucky Charms 30 Trix

verage NPI score Frosted Toast A Crunch 20 <40 Reese's Puffs Fruity Pebbles Cocoa Pebbles Marshmallow 10 Pebbles *Includes cereals on the September 2011 CFBAI list with nutrition 0 data available in May 2012 Child brands Family brands Adult brands

new adult brands had slightly lower scores than previously and Post would qualify for child-directed advertising existing brands. according to the companies’ nutrition criteria for the CFBAI, these generally very low-scoring products are the ones that companies have indicated are appropriate to include in Additional nutrition criteria advertising to children. We also examined the nutrition standards of cereals Overall, 57% of child cereals and 2% of family cereals were according to additional nutrition criteria, including criteria approved by the CFBAI to include in child-directed advertising established by OFCOM in the United Kingdom (foods that (see Figure 3). However, just one child cereal (Gluten Free can be advertising to children on TV), the USDA (foods Rice Krispies) could be advertised to children on TV in the approved to include in WIC packages), and the IWG (recommended criteria for foods marketed to children). Figure 3. Additional nutrition criteria for child, family, and In addition, we examined products that were approved adult cereals to advertise to children according to CFBAI participating companies. CFBAI As mentioned, the number of cereals included on the list of approved* products approved to be advertised to children by CFBAI companies dropped drastically from 41 in 2009 to 21 in 2011. Nutrition data were available for 17 of those cereals Meet UK as of May 2012. The percentage of CFBAI-approved cereals child with low NPI scores less than 50 increased from 76% to 88%. advertising ■ Adult brands In addition, although 17% percent of cereals on the list in guidelines ■ Family brands 2008 had healthy NPI scores greater than 62, not one cereal ■ Child brands with an NPI score over 62 was included in the 2011 list. Of note, Mini-Wheats, the highest-rated child or family brand, was absent from the list of approved cereals in 2011, but has Meet WIC since been reinstated in the 2012 list.3 Post joined the CFBAI sugar limit after the last report was issued, but three of its approved cereals have very low NPI scores of 26 to 28. These three cereals (Fruity, Cocoa and Marshmallow Pebbles) were 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% among the five lowest-scoring cereals in the entire analysis. % of cereals Although nearly all cereals offered by General Mills, Kellogg, *Includes cereals from CFBAI participants approved as of September 2011

Cereal FACTS 14 Results

Figure 4. Cereals meeting IWG nutrient limits on foods Using the recommended nutrient limits for foods marketed marketed to children to children established by the IWG, we found similar results (see Figure 4). Adult cereals were more than five times as likely to meet the IWG sugar limit of 26%; just 10% of child Sugar cereals met this guideline. Sodium guidelines were less limiting, as approximately one in four child cereals met this limit. However, not one child cereal met the recommended limits on the four nutrients established by the IWG (also including saturated fat and trans fat). These results are in Sodium* stark contrast to the 49% of adult cereals and 27% of family ■ Adult brands cereals that met all four IWG limits. The IWG criteria also ■ Family brands required that cereals contain at least 50% whole grain, but IWG nutrition limits ■ Child brands due to the difficulty of determining whole grain content for many cereals based on ingredient lists, we excluded the whole grain requirement from this evaluation. All limits* Summary of cereal nutrition quality 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% General Mills, Kellogg, and Post have identified 17 of % of cereals that meet limits the cereals in our analysis as healthier options that can *Using interim sodium limits be included in advertising directed at children under 12. However, according to our nutrition analyses, as well as United Kingdom, and just two met the sugar limits to be standards established by government agencies, none of included in the WIC program (Rice Krispies and Gluten Free these products qualify as nutritious products that should be Rice Krispies). In contrast, nearly one in three adult cereals marketed to children. All companies do have products that and one in five family cereals met the U.K. child advertising meet these criteria, but they are marketed to parents or adults standards. In addition, 32% of family cereals and 65% of adult (for their own consumption) – not directly to children. Of note, cereals met the WIC sugar limits. However, General Mills, General Mills and Kellogg had family cereals that met the IWG Kellogg, and Post have not chosen to include these more limits for sugar, sodium, and fat, including Multigrain Cheerios nutritious products in advertising directed to children. and 11 varieties of Mini-Wheats. Cereal Nutrition Quality Changes for the better ■ Nutrition improvements were achieved across child, family, and adult brands overall, especially for sodium content. ■ 13 of the 16 child brands improved NPI scores by an average of 10%, including all General Mills brands. ■ New brands and varieties generally had better nutrition scores than existing products. Changes for the worse ■ Post child brands have more sugar, less fiber, and lower NPI scores than they did in 2008. ■ The proportion of CFBAI-approved products with a low nutrition score (<50) increased from 76% to 88%. As of 2011, no CFBAI-approved cereals on the list had a healthy NPI score of 62 or higher.

Cereal FACTS 15 Results

Traditional media advertising In this section, we first present advertising spending internet. We then provide data on children’s exposure to TV in measured media, including TV, magazines, and the advertising. Advertising spending

Advertising spending Definitions Advertising spending Amount spent on all measured media, including TV, magazines, internet, radio, newspapers, FSI coupons, and outdoor. Data were licensed from Nielsen.

In 2011, spending on all measured media by the cereal General Mills and Kellogg continued to dominate advertising companies in our analysis reached $712 million, a 7% spending for child and family cereal brands (see Figure 6). increase versus 2008. Cereal companies spent the most to General Mills spent a total of $246 million in 2011 on its support child brands in 2011 ($264 million), followed closely child and family brands – an increase of 26% versus 2008. by adult brands ($242 million). Cereal spent much less ($158 Kellogg’s spending increased by 38% to reach $162 million million) on family brands, as well as a small amount ($47 in 2011 in total, while spending on its child brands jumped by million) on company-level ads to support multiple brands. 47%. General Mills devoted 42% of its total cereal advertising Spending on child brands increased dramatically (+34%) spending in 2011 to child brands, and Kellogg devoted from 2008 to 2011, even with a slight decline of 5% from 43%. Post and the other companies in our analysis spent 2010 to 2011 (see Figure 5). In contrast, there was a steady considerably less. Post did not advertise any family brands, reduction in spending on adult brands, down by 13% from but its advertising spending on child brands increased by 16% 2008. Cereal companies spent more on adult brands than from 2008 to 2011. On the other hand, Quaker significantly on child brands in 2008, but in 2010 and 2011 they spent reduced advertising spending from $12 million in 2008 to more on child brands. Spending for adult brands dropped just $155,000 in 2011 for its family brands. Two of the smaller from 42% of all advertising spending in 2008 to 34% in 2011, companies in our analysis (Barbara’s Bakery and Nature’s Path) while spending on child brands increased from 30% of also had some advertising spending on family brands in 2011, spending in 2008 to 37% in 2011. Advertising spending on but their combined spending represented less than 1% of family brands also increased by 14% from 2008 to 2011, but advertising spending for all child and family brands. represented just over 20% of cereal advertising expenditures Table 6 presents spending allocated to TV, magazine, and both years. In 2011, child and family brands together internet advertising by company for child and family brands. accounted for nearly 60% of all cereal advertising spending Cereal company budgets continued to be allocated primarily compared with 51% in 2008. to TV advertising, representing 86% of advertising spending

Figure 5. Trends in advertising spending for child, family, Figure 6. Total advertising spending for child and family and adult brands brands by company $300 $250 ■ Family brands ■ Child brands $200 $250 $103.8

■ Child brands $150 $83.7 ■ $53.9 $200 Adult brands ■ Family brands $100 $43.3 $142.2

$150 otal advertising spending (million) otal advertising spending (million) T $111.5 $108.4 T $50 $73.6

$11.8 $13.8 $100 $0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 Source: Nielsen General Mills Kellogg Post Source: Nielsen Cereal FACTS 16 Results

Table 6. Advertising spending on child and family brands by medium and company

TV (million) Magazines (million) Internet (million) # of brands in 2011* 2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 General Mills 11 $180.3 $228.8 $5.1 $4.5 $7.8 $11.6 Kellogg 6 $100.9 $127.8 $11.9 $28.1 $3.8 $4.8 Post** 1 $10.3 $6.7 $.2 $5.2 $1.2 $.5 Other companies 1 $7.3 $.5 $4.7 $0 $.2 $0

*Brands with $100,000 or more in total advertising spending ** Includes spending on ads for "kids cereals" combined Source: Nielsen for child and family brands. In 2011, General Mills and Kellogg spending in 2011 as compared to 2008. Backed by $74 both increased media dollars dedicated to TV by 27%. Cereal million in advertising dollars in 2011, General Mills Honey companies also expanded spending in other media. General Nut Cheerios continued to receive the highest level of media Mills spent 49% more on internet advertising in 2011 than in spending among the child and family brands and exceeded 2008, and it spent 160% more on internet than on magazine the second-most advertised brand (Kellogg Mini-Wheats) advertising. Kellogg also increased internet advertising by 27%, by 37%. However, the most notable increases in spending but its most noteworthy shift was toward magazine advertising, on child and family brands were for General Mills Cinnamon which increased 136% over 2008. At $28 million, magazines Toast Crunch and Chex; both posted increases exceeding were the one medium in which Kellogg outspent General Mills. 85%. General Mills also increased spending on Reese’s Puffs Post also shifted advertising dollars into magazines, but reduced (+57%), Lucky Charms (+21%), and Trix (+17%). The only its internet advertising versus 2008. Across all companies, General Mills child brands with lower spending in 2011 versus spending on magazine advertising represented 9% of media 2008 were Cocoa Puffs (-9%) and Cookie Crisp (-49%). budgets and internet advertising represented 4%. Kellogg substantially reduced spending on its Rice and Ranking Table 2 details advertising spending for 2008 and Cocoa Krispies brand in 2011 versus 2008 (-26%). However, 2011 for each of the child and family brands in our analysis. it dedicated more advertising dollars to two child brands: General Mills advertised seven child brands and four Frosted Flakes more than doubled (+121%), and Froot family brands in 2011. Excluding Kix (which had very low Loops increased by 353%. These Kellogg brands ranked spending), General Mills averaged $20 million in advertising as the fourth and fifth most heavily supported child or family for each child brand and $35 million for each family brand. brands, up from fifth and twelfth in 2008. Kellogg advertised five child brands in 2011, averaging $22 Although the majority of cereal companies’ advertising million on each. Kellogg also advertised one family brand spending was devoted to TV, General Mills spent $2.4 million or (Mini-Wheats), with a budget of $54 million. Post advertised more on internet advertising for three child brands (Cinnamon just one child brand (Pebbles) in 2011, totaling $14 million. Toast Crunch, Honey Nut Cheerios, and Lucky Charms). Two brands no longer advertised in 2011 (Post Honeycomb Kellogg also spent almost $12 million on magazine advertising and Nature’s Path Envirokidz Organic). for Rice and Cocoa Krispies and more than $6 million on Mini- More than one-half of the 23 advertised child and family Wheats and Froot Loops magazine ads. In addition, Post spent brands in our analysis posted an increase in total advertising more than $5 million advertising Pebbles in magazines.

TV advertising exposure TV advertising exposure Definitions Gross rating points Measure of the per capita number of TV advertisements viewed by a specific demographic group (GRPs) over a period of time across all types of programming. GRPs for specific demographic groups are also known as targeted rating points (TRPs). Data were licensed from Nielsen. Average advertising GRPs divided by 100. Provides a measure of the number of ads viewed by the average individual exposure during the time period measured. Targeted ratio: GRPs for 2- to 11-year-olds divided be GRPs for 18- to 49-year-olds. Provides a measure of relative Children to adults exposure of children to adults.

As Figure 7 illustrates, the number of TV ads viewed by preschoolers (2-5 years) saw 6% fewer ads in 2011 versus 2- to 11-year-olds for all cereals trended steadily upward 2008, and children (6-11 years) saw 2% fewer. However, from 2008 to 2010, and then fell sharply in 2011. As a result, overall exposure to TV advertising for cereals remained

Cereal FACTS 17 Results

Figure 7. Trends in exposure to TV advertising for all ads seen by adolescents, and just 36% of ads seen by adults; cereals by age group these proportions are comparable to four years ago (see Figure 900 8). As with cereal TV ads overall, preschoolers viewed fewer ads for child brands in 2011 compared with 2008 (-8%), and the 800 number of ads viewed by older children (6-11 years) remained fairly stable (-1%). In contrast, adolescents and adults viewed 4% and 23% more ads, respectively, for child brands in 2011 700 than they did in 2008. For family brands, on the other hand, exposure to TV advertising rose among all age groups from 600 2008 to 2011, ranging from a 66% increase for adults to 86% for preschoolers. Although family brands represented just 7% of 500 ads viewed by children (2-11 years), they represented 16% of the ads seen by adolescents, and one-quarter of the ads seen

TV ads viewed per year by adults. In comparison,children saw 21% to 22% fewer TV 400 ■ Children (6-11 years) ads for adult brands and company-level ads in 2011 compared ■ Preschoolers (2-5 years) with 2008, and adolescents saw 14% fewer. However, adult 300 ■ Adolescents (12-17 years) exposure to TV ads for adult cereals increased slightly (+3%). ■ Adults (18-49 years) Adult brands and company ads represented just 13% of cereal 200 ads viewed by preschoolers and children, 23% of ads viewed 2008 2009 2010 2011 by adolescents, and 40% of those viewed by adults. Source: Nielsen Youth of all ages continued to be exposed to more TV ads for General Mills cereals than for other cereal companies (see highest for children compared with other age groups. Figure 9). General Mills was also the only company to increase Preschoolers saw 1.6 ads per day in 2011 and older children cereal advertising to youth of all ages from 2008 to 2011. On saw 1.9 per day, whereas adolescents and adults saw an average, preschoolers saw 356 ads for General Mills child and average of 1.3 cereal ads per day. From 2008 to 2010, family brands in 2011 (+10% vs. 2008), and older children (6- adolescent exposure exceeded that of adults by as many 11 years) saw more than 400 of these ads (+16%). Adolescents as 70 ads per year. However, increases in adult exposure saw fewer TV ads for child and family brands overall versus (+21% from 2008 to 2011) coupled with relatively steady their younger counterparts, but their exposure to General Mills exposure among adolescents almost closed the gap in 2011. ads increased by 35%, the highest increase for any age group. Child brands comprised 79% to 80% of the Conversely, children’s exposure to TV ads for Kellogg and Post ads seen by children (2-11 years) on TV in 2011, 61% of cereal child and family brands declined in 2011 compared with 2008. Preschoolers saw 18% fewer ads for Kellogg cereals and older

Figure 8. Exposure to TV advertising for child, family, and adult brands/company ads by age group 800 ■ Adult brands/company ads 700 ■ Family brands 118 92 ■ Child brands 600 101 29 52 80 24 500 44

111 400 128 182 567 559 74 44 300 510 471 176 113

TV ads viewed per year 200 69 276 288

100 133 163

0 2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 Preschoolers (2-5 years) Children (6-11 years) Adolescents (12-17 years) Adults (18-49 years) Source: Nielsen

Cereal FACTS 18 Results

Figure 9. Exposure to TV advertising for child and family brands by company and age group 700 ■ Post

600 52 ■ Kellogg 73 ■ General Mills 500 58 39 149 164 146 120 400 22

300 32 99 102 200 325 356 354 411 TV ads viewed per year 178 241 100

0 2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 Preschoolers (2-5 years) Children (6-11 years) Adolescents (12-17 years) Source: Nielsen children saw 9% fewer, whereas adolescent exposure was four General Mills child brands increased from 2008 to 2011, consistent from year to year. Youth of all ages saw 29% to 32% with the greatest increases for Reese’s Puffs (+52%) and Trix fewer ads for Post child brands in 2011 versus 2008 (Post did (+26%). The company did, however, reduce the number of not advertise any family brands). As a result, General Mills’ ads viewed by children for three child brands (Lucky Charms, share of TV exposure among children (2-11 years) grew over Cocoa Puffs ,and Cookie Crisp), but these declines were the period examined. General Mills was responsible for 68% lower at 8% to 17%. of children’s exposure to TV ads for child and family brands in Kellogg Froot Loops was the third most frequently advertised 2011, up from 61% in 2008. Kellogg was responsible for 24% of cereal brand on TV in 2011, and exposure to Froot Loops children’s exposure, compared to 28% in 2008, and Post was advertising nearly doubled from 2008 to 2011 among children responsible for less than 10%, versus 12% in 2008. and preschoolers. Children also viewed 3.4 times more ads Ranking Table 3 details the average number of ads viewed for Froot Loops than adults viewed. Conversely, children by children for individual child and family brands. In viewed one-third as many ads for Corn Pops, Apple Jacks, addition, it provides child to adult targeted ratios, a measure and Rice and Cocoa Krispies in 2011 versus 2008. These of relative exposure for children versus adults. In 2011, three brands ranked in the bottom five for child exposure in children viewed 1.4 to 6.9 times as many TV ads for the 2011. Post’s one advertised brand (Pebbles) ranked number 12 child brands in our analysis compared with adults. In six, and exposure to TV ads for Pebbles increased by 18% for contrast, children viewed 50% to 60% fewer ads than adults preschoolers and 27% for older children. In addition, children for the five family brands. saw 6.4 times more ads for the product than adults saw. General Mills produced four of the top-five brands advertised most often to children on TV in 2011. Children saw the most Summary of traditional media advertising ads for Cinnamon Toast Crunch: 61 ads on average for preschoolers (2-5 years) in 2011 and 72 for older children Our analysis highlights mixed trends with regard to traditional (6-11 years). All children (2-11 years) saw 2.5 times more media advertising for cereals. Total advertising spending on Cinnamon Toast Crunch ads than adults saw. Honey Nut child brands increased from 2008 to 2011, yet preschoolers’ Cheerios was the second-most advertised cereal to children, exposure to cereal advertising on TV went down slightly. with average exposure rates of 59 ads for preschoolers and However, one-half of child brands increased their TV 67 ads for older children. Reese’s Puffs and Lucky Charms advertising to children substantially. Cereal companies also ranked fourth and fifth in number of TV ads viewed by increased advertising spending on magazines or the internet children. General Mills also had five of the seven child brands for more than one-half of their child brands, and in many cases with child to adult targeted ratios above 6.0. Children saw appeared to target older age groups (adolescents and adults) approximately seven times more ads for Reese’s Puffs, Lucky with TV advertising. Overall, children’s exposure to TV ads for Charms, Trix, Cocoa Puffs, and Cookie Crisp than adults saw. General Mills child and family brands increased, whereas their In addition, children’s exposure (2-11 years) to TV ads for exposure to TV ads for Kellogg and Post brands went down.

Cereal FACTS 19 Results

Traditional Media Advertising Changes for the better ■ Preschoolers (2-5 years) saw 8% fewer TV ads for child brands in 2011 versus 2008 and 6% fewer cereal ads in total; exposure by older children (6-11 years) remained stable. ■ The number of TV ads viewed by all children went down for three child brands from General Mills (Lucky Charms, Cocoa Puffs, and Cookie Crisp) and three from Kellogg (Corn Pops, Apple Jacks, and Rice and Cocoa Krispies). ■ Quaker significantly reduced advertising dollars dedicated to its family brands (to just $155,000 in 2011), and did not advertise its child or family brands on TV in 2011. ■ Post stopped advertising one brand (Honeycomb) altogether. Changes for the worse ■ General Mills, Kellogg, and Post all spent more to advertise child and family brands in 2011, including a 34% increase in spending on child brands. ■ Reversing the trend in 2008, companies spent more to advertise child brands than adult brands. ■ General Mills, Kellogg, and Post supplemented TV advertising with additional spending in other media (i.e., internet and magazines). ■ General Mills spent 26% more to advertise child and family brands on TV in 2011 versus 2008; children’s exposure to ads for four brands increased (Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Honey Nut Cheerios, Reese’s Puffs, and Trix). ■ Kellogg spent 27% more to advertise child and family brands on TV in 2011; children’s exposure to ads for two brands increased (Froot Loops and Frosted Flakes). ■ Children’s exposure to TV ads for Post’s one advertised child brand (Pebbles) increased.

Cereal FACTS 20 Results

Internet marketing We examined three types of marketing that occur on the marketing. We provide child and adolescent exposure data internet: cereal company-sponsored websites, banner when available. advertising on third-party websites, and social media

Website exposure Website exposure Definitions Average monthly Average number of unique individuals who visited the website each month. Data are reported for unique visitors4 children (2-11 years) and adolescents (12-17 years). Average visits per month5 Average number of times each unique visitor (2-17 years) visited the website each month. Average minutes per visit6 Average number of minutes each unique visitor (2-17 years) spent on the website each time she or he visited. Average minutes Average number of minutes each unique visitor spent on the website each month (average visits per month per month multiplied by average minutes per visit). Targeted visitor ratios: Provides the relative proportion of children and teens who visited the website as compared to the Child to adult; teen to proportion of adult visitors. For example, if the child to adult ratio for a website was 2.0, then children adult were twice as likely to visit the website compared to adults.

We identified 15 cereal company-sponsored websites for CrazySquares.com for Cinnamon Toast Crunch. In addition, child brands in 2011 (see Table 7). General Mills, Kellogg, Post replaced Postopia.com with a smaller advergame site, and Post had 13 different websites specifically targeted to PebblesPlay.com (Postopia.com currently redirects to this children. In addition, two adult-targeted websites had some page) and introduced GoBigForThePlanet.com with activities child content (e.g., games on RiceKrispies.com). Of the promoting Honeycomb cereal. 15 websites examined, 12 had enough visitors to obtain Three Kellogg advergame websites had the highest number exposure data from comScore. of child visitors in 2011 (see Ranking Table 4). Froot Loops The two most popular child-targeted websites in 2008 – led with an average of 161,900 unique child visitors per Millsberry.com and Postopia.com – no longer existed by the month, followed by AppleJacks.com with 116,200, and end of 2011. In addition, CapnCrunch.com and Envirokidz.com CornPops.com with 59,500. General Mills followed with three no longer contained child-targeted features. Of note, advergame sites averaging 29,300 monthly unique child CapnCrunch.com now targets adults with a nostalgia theme visitors (ReesesPuffs.com) to 52,300 (LuckyCharms.com). (“Join others in turning back the clock and reclaim your Of note, with just one quarter of data available, General Mills’ Crunch Time!”).7 However, new child-targeted sites have new HoneyDefender.com website ranked fifth in number of emerged. General Mills introduced two new advergaming unique child visitors for the year. sites, HoneyDefender.com for Honey Nut Cheerios and

Table 7. Cereal company-sponsored websites with child content

Company Website Type Exposure data available General Mills CookieCrisp.com Child-targeted website General Mills CrazySquares.com (Cinnamon Toast Crunch) Child-targeted website General Mills HoneyDefender.com (Honey Nut Cheerios) Child-targeted website ✔ General Mills HoneyNutCheerios.com Child content on adult website ✔ General Mills LuckyCharms.com Child-targeted website ✔ General Mills ReesesPuffs.com Child-targeted website ✔ General Mills TrixWorld.com Child-targeted website ✔ Kellogg AppleJacks.com Child-targeted website ✔ Kellogg CornPops.com Child-targeted website ✔ Kellogg FrootLoops.com Child-targeted website ✔ Kellogg FrostedFlakes.com Child-targeted website ✔ Kellogg RiceKrispies.com Child content on adult website ✔ Post GoBigForThePlanet.com (Honeycomb) Child-targeted website Post PebblesPlay.com Child-targeted website ✔ Post Postopia.com Child-targeted website ✔

Cereal FACTS 21 Results

Table 8. Average monthly unique child visitors to cereal company websites by quarter

Monthly unique child visitors (2-11 years) Jan-Mar Apr-Jun July-Sept Oct-Dec 2011 average Company Website (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) Kellogg FrootLoops.com 126.5 207.4 313.9 - 161.9 Kellogg AppleJacks.com 140.7 118.9 96.5 108.8 116.2 Kellogg CornPops.com 237.9 - - - 59.5 General Mills LuckyCharms.com 99.2 35.3 36.9 37.8 52.3 General Mills HoneyDefender.com* - - - 170.7 42.7 General Mills ReesesPuffs.com 13.5 20.1 2.2 81.5 29.3 Kellogg FrostedFlakes.com 63.0 - 51.1 - 28.5 Post PebblesPlay.com* 26.8 19.8 5.1 48.8 25.1 General Mills TrixWorld.com - - 49.7 - 12.4 Kellogg RiceKrispies.com 4.8 6.7 4.6 5.2 5.3 General Mills HoneyNutCheerios.com - 0.3 5.0 13.3 4.7 Post Postopia.com** 3.3 - - - 0.8

* Launched after 2009 ** Discontinued in early 2011 Source: comScore Media Metrix Key Measures Report (January – December 2011)

Of the 10 child-targeted websites that also existed in 2008, 8 per visit, on average. Children also visited the current had more unique child visitors in 2011. The number of child sites less often. Young people had visited Millsberry.com visitors to FrootLoops.com and CornPops.com increased and Postopia.com 2.8 and 2.0 times per month in 2008, by approximately 300%, and AppleJacks.com had a 150% respectively, while CornPops.com was visited 1.6 times per increase. RiceKrispies.com and HoneyNutCheerios.com month in 2011 and was the most frequently visited site in the (the two adult-targeted websites with child content), as current analysis. well as the discontinued Postopia.com, had the fewest There was considerable variability across quarters in the unique child visitors of the sites with available data. In total, number of unique visitors for some advergame websites (see Kellogg websites attracted 339,000 unique child visitors Table 8). For instance, FrootLoops.com averaged 313,900 who averaged 4.3 minutes on the sites every month in 2011. unique child visitors per month in the third quarter – almost as General Mills sites attracted approximately one-third as many many monthly unique child visitors as the most popular website unique child visitors (119,000 per month), and Post sites in 2008 (Millsberry.com) – but it did not have enough visitors attracted just 25,000 unique child visitors per month. for comScore to measure during the fourth quarter. Similarly, None of the current websites approached the levels of CornPops.com averaged 237,900 unique child visitors in the engagement achieved by the discontinued Millsberry.com first quarter, but did not have enough visitors for comScore to and Postopia.com; the two averaged 24 and 15 minutes per measure during the remainder of the year. Unique child visitors visit, respectively, in 2008. By contrast, the most engaging site to LuckyCharms.com also declined significantly after the first in 2011 (CornPops.com) kept children online for 5 minutes quarter. On the other hand, HoneyDefender.com first appeared

Table 9. Comparisons of child, adolescent, and adult visitors to websites for child brands

Children (2-11 years) Adolescents (12-17 years) Monthly unique Child:adult Monthly unique Teen:adult Company Website visitors (000) targeted ratio visitors (000) targeted ratio General Mills TrixWorld.com 12.4 20.2 4.5 6.0 Kellogg FrootLoops.com 161.9 20.2 54.5 5.1 Kellogg CornPops.com 59.5 7.2 21.6 4.2 General Mills LuckyCharms.com 52.3 5.3 18.8 1.9 General Mills ReesesPuffs.com 29.3 5.2 10.3 3.5 Kellogg AppleJacks.com 116.2 4.1 58.8 3.0 General Mills HoneyDefender.com 42.7 3.6 18.8 2.1 Kellogg FrostedFlakes.com 28.5 3.2 15.8 1.6 Post PebblesPlay.com 25.1 1.0 21.5 1.1 General Mills HoneyNutCheerios.com 4.7 0.7 7.8 1.1 Kellogg RiceKrispies.com 5.3 0.2 17.0 0.4

Source: comScore Media Metrix Key Measures Report (January – December 2011) Cereal FACTS 22 Results in the comScore data during the fourth quarter of 2011 and compared with adults. Children were also at least five times averaged 170,700 unique child visitors per month, the fourth more likely to visit ReesesPuffs.com, LuckyCharms.com, and highest number of visitors to any website examined in a quarter. CornPops.com. These ratios were much higher in 2011 than Similarly, the number of unique child visitors to ReesesPuffs.com in 2008 when the most heavily targeted site – Postopia.com and PebblesPlay.com increased dramatically during the fourth – had a child to adult targeted ratio of approximately 3.0. quarter of 2011. The child-targeted websites also attracted more child than adolescent visitors, ranging from 17% more children With the exception of Postopia.com, all child-targeted visiting PebblesPlay.com to three times as many visiting websites had child to adult targeted ratios of 3.2 or higher, FrootLoops.com. Not surprisingly, the two adult-targeted confirming that the sites disproportionately appeal to sites with child content (HoneyNutCheerios.com and children (see Table 9). For example, children were more than RiceKrispies.com) were the only sites that were more likely to 20 times as likely to visit TrixWorld.com and FrootLoops.com be visited by adults than by children. Banner advertising on third-party websites Banner advertising exposure Definitions Third-party websites Websites on which advertising for the brands in our analysis appear. Banner advertising Ads that appear on third-party websites as rich media (SWF files) and traditional image-based ads (JPEG and GIF files). They usually appear in a sidebar or “banner” at the top of a web page. Text, video, and html-based ads are not included. Youth websites Third-party websites with a disproportionate number of youth visitors (2-17 years), including entertainment websites for youth and websites with a percentage of youth visitors (2-17 years) that exceeds the percentage of youth visitors on the total internet. Unique viewers per month8 Average number of unique viewers exposed to a company’s banner advertisements each month. Ads viewed per viewer Average number of banner advertisements viewed per unique viewer each month. per month9 Proportion of ads viewed Percentage of a company’s banner advertisements that appeared on youth websites out of all on youth websites10 websites on which the ads appeared. Average number of ad Number of banner advertisements viewed on youth websites in an average month in 2011. views on youth websites per month11

Eleven child brands and three family brands were advertised on youth websites in 2011. More than 142 million ads Table 10. Top third-party youth websites with advertising for for these brands were viewed on youth websites every child brands month on average, totaling 1.7 billion ads viewed in 2011 yearly ad 2011. Advertising for child brands dominated the banner views for child cereal brands advertising landscape in 2011, representing 86% of all Websites (million) cereal advertising on youth websites. Table 10 lists the youth Viacom Digital (including Nick.com and NickJr.com websites with the most advertising for child brands. The sites, iCarly.com, AddictingGames.com, and majority of child brand banner advertising that appeared NeoPets.com) 938.5 on youth websites (88%) was placed on websites of just Turner Entertainment Digital (including CartoonNetwork.com and EdEddNEddy.com) 290.0 three entertainment companies: Viacom Digital (e.g., Nick. Disney Online websites 232.1 com, NeoPets.com), Turner Entertainment Digital (e.g., WildTangent Media (including Roblox.com and CartoonNetwork.com), and Disney Online. AQWorlds.com) 64.4 Due primarily to the discontinuation of Millsberry.com (and Youthology Kids (including CartoonDollEmporium.com and Kidzworld.com) 36.6 the banner advertising that promoted it), banner advertising MiniClip.com 20.0 for child and family brands on youth websites decreased MyYearBook.com 15.0 by 25% from 2008-2009 to 2011. Despite this decrease, CoolMath.com websites 10.4 General Mills remained the most prominent advertiser, placing twice as many advertisements as Kellogg and 37 Source: comScore Ad Metrix Advertiser Report (January – times those of Post (see Ranking Table 5). Nearly 95 million December 2011)

Cereal FACTS 23 Results

Table 11. Average monthly ads viewed on youth websites for child and family brands by quarter

Monthly ad views on youth websites Proportion of ads viewed on 2011 youth Jan-Mar Apr-June July-Sept Oct-Dec average Company Brand websites (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) Kellogg Froot Loops 83% 998 25,127 44,506 0 17,658 General Mills Reese's Puffs 81% 19,100 8,449 109 35,883 15,885 Kellogg Corn Pops 79% 6,875 151 0 0 1,756 General Mills Trix 75% 0 543 35,079 0 8,905 General Mills Lucky Charms 71% 54,689 36,049 12,667 37,777 35,295 Kellogg Apple Jacks 62% 12,762 6,961 11,038 7,143 9,476 Kellogg Frosted Flakes 61% 13,456 179 25,823 1,175 10,158 General Mills Cinnamon Toast Crunch 55% 27,968 14,741 15,125 20,638 19,618 Post Pebbles 44% 0 157 0 10,165 2,581 General Mills Honey Nut Cheerios 29% 4,642 10,006 24,931 11,060 12,660 Kellogg Rice and Cocoa Krispies 15% 0 5,908 2,716 10,749 4,843 Kellogg Mini-Wheats 4% 1,072 667 4,456 0 1,549 General Mills Cheerios (except Honey Nut) 3% 1,624 2,054 3,049 3,410 2,534 General Mills Chex 0% 8 0 0 0 2

Source: comScore Ad Metrix Advertiser Report (January – December 2011) ads for General Mills child and family brands were viewed on to PebblesPlay.com. Nearly 2.6 million Pebbles ads were youth websites per month on average in 2011. viewed on youth websites in an average month in 2011, and PebblesPlay.com was promoted twice as often on youth Lucky Charms was the most heavily advertised brand on websites in 2011 as Postopia.com had been in 2008-2009. youth websites in 2011. On average, 6.2 million viewers each saw 7.2 ads for Lucky Charms every month (+58% Table 11 presents the proportion of banner ads for each from 2008-2009). Cinnamon Toast Crunch ranked second brand that were viewed on youth websites. For General Mills, with 7 million viewers who each saw 4.9 ads per month. Of the proportion of banner ads for child brands viewed on note, this brand had not been promoted on youth websites youth websites ranged from 55% for Cinnamon Toast Crunch in 2008-2009. General Mills also tripled its advertising on to 81% for Reese’s Puffs; only banner ads from Honey Nut youth websites for Honey Nut Cheerios and increased ads Cheerios were viewed relatively infrequently (29% of ad for Reese’s Puffs by 4%. Trix was the only General Mills child views) on youth websites. Similarly, the proportion of banner brand with fewer banner ads in 2011 (-15%), yet it remained ads for Kellogg child brands viewed on youth websites the eighth most widely promoted cereal on youth websites. ranged from 61% for Frosted Flakes to 83% for Froot Loops. However, Rice and Cocoa Krispies had a low proportion of From 2008-2009 to 2011, Kellogg nearly doubled total banner ads viewed on youth websites (15%). Of note, the advertising on third-party youth websites for its child brands, two child brands with the lowest proportion of banner ads on reaching 43.9 million ads viewed per month in 2011. Over the youth websites (Honey Nut Cheerios and Rice and Cocoa same period, banner advertising for Frosted Flakes increased Krispies) were also the only child brands with adult-targeted by 13 times and Rice Krispies and Froot Loops increased websites. Slightly less than one-half of banner ads for Post three-fold. On average, 3.4 million viewers each saw 4.7 Pebbles appeared on youth websites. Froot Loop ads per month, making it the third most frequently promoted cereal on youth websites in 2011. In addition, 6.3 Banner ads for family brands rarely appeared on youth and 3.2 million viewers each saw approximately four ads websites (0-4% of ads viewed). Approximately 2.5 million each for Rice Krispies and Frosted Flakes per month. Banner ads for General Mills Cheerios (except Honey Nut) and 1.5 advertising for Apple Jacks on youth websites remained million ads for Kellogg Mini-Wheats were viewed on youth relatively stable from 2008-2009 to 2011 and 3.6 million websites in an average month. Although banner advertising individuals saw 3.9 ads each for this brand in 2011. Corn Pops on youth websites for Mini-Wheats increased five-fold from advertising on youth websites decreased substantially over 2008-2009, this number represented just 4% of all banner the same time period (-62%). Of note, Kellogg discontinued ads viewed for the brand. advertising Cocoa Krispies on youth websites in 2011. As observed for the number of unique child visitors to cereal In 2011, Post advertised just one child brand on youth company websites, the volume of banner advertising on youth websites (Pebbles); these ads mainly encouraged visits websites fluctuated greatly by quarter (see Table 11). Two

Cereal FACTS 24 Results child brands with the highest number of unique visitors to during the first quarter of 2011, as well as the highest numbers their websites during the fourth quarter of 2011 (Reese’s Puffs of ads viewed on youth websites. Finally, Froot Loops and Trix and Pebbles), also exhibited fourth quarter jumps in banner both had the highest volume of banner advertising on youth advertising on youth websites. In addition, three brands websites and unique visitors to their websites during the third (Apple Jacks, Lucky Charms, and Corn Pops) exhibited the quarter. highest numbers of unique child visitors to their websites

Social media Social media marketing Definitions Facebook The largest social networking site. Advertisers maintain their own pages on which they present information about their products, share links to other sites, upload photos and videos, and post messages. Facebook “likes” Facebook users can become fans of a cereal brand by clicking a “like” button on the brand’s page. A thumbnail photo of that individual is then visible on the brand page in the “people who like this” section. Any time the brand modifies its page that activity shows up in the individual’s “news feed,” or personalized Facebook home page. Similarly, any time the individual interacts with the brand’s page, this action shows up in the “news feeds” of all his or her Facebook friends. The cereal brand also appears on the individual’s Facebook page as something that he or she “likes.” Twitter Twitter is a micro-blogging service. Cereal brands publish 140-character messages called “tweets” that are posted on their profile pages. Users can “follow” cereal brands by subscribing to their tweets. Twitter users may also follow cereal brand tweets through their mobile phones. YouTube YouTube is a website that enables cereal brands to upload and share videos for the public to view. A few brands in our analysis have customized channels on YouTube with playlists of videos available for viewing.

We found eight child and family brands that used social Facebook-user generated. We could find no evidence that media marketing (see Ranking Table 6). General Mills they were sponsored by Post or General Mills. Cheerios had the greatest social media presence, with 741,000 Facebook “likes” as of May 1, 2012; more than 5,000 Twitter followers; and 17,500 views on its YouTube Summary of internet marketing channel. Cheerios social media accounts were also among The most significant change since the first Cereal FACTS the most active, with 13 Facebook posts and 1,400 tweets report is that the two extremely popular advergame during April 2012. In addition, Kellogg Frosted Flakes and websites (Millsberry.com and Postopia.com) have been Mini-Wheats had large numbers of Facebook likes (300,000 discontinued. As a result, the total number of child visitors and 145,000, respectively). Quaker Cap’n Crunch also had to cereal company websites and the amount of banner an active social media presence, posting 33 comments on advertising on third-party youth websites declined from its Facebook page in April 2012. Cap’n Crunch was also the 2008 to 2011. However, General Mills, Kellogg, and Post only other brand with a Twitter account, posting 497 monthly have all introduced new child-targeted websites, and they tweets. General Mills Golden Grahams sponsored a YouTube encouraged children to visit the sites with almost 2 billion channel with 43 videos featuring “Golden Grant” cartoons. banner ads on other popular children’s websites, including The channel had accumulated 277,000 views, although no Nick.com and Disney.com. As a result, 5 of the 10 child- new videos have been posted since 2010. targeted websites in this analysis had approximately 100,000 With the exception of Frosted Flakes, we found no evidence or more unique child visitors per month during at least one of social media marketing by cereal companies to promote quarter of 2011. Social media was widely used by seven child brands. Four additional child cereals (Fruity Pebbles, family brands (e.g., Cheerios and Cap’n Crunch). However, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Cocoa Puffs, and Lucky Charms) Frosted Flakes was the only child brand with a company- did have Facebook pages with significant numbers of likes sponsored social media presence. (29,000-69,000). However, these pages appeared to be

Cereal FACTS 25 Results

Internet Marketing Changes for the better ■ The two most-visited and engaging children’s advergame websites – Millsberry.com and Postopia.com – were discontinued, as was banner advertising for these sites. ■ Cap’n Crunch discontinued its child-targeted website; the site is now geared toward adults. ■ Banner advertising for child and family brands on youth websites decreased by 25%, including a reduction of 43% by General Mills (primarily due to the discontinuation of Millsberry.com). ■ Kellogg stopped promoting Cocoa Krispies on youth websites and reduced advertising for Corn Pops by approximately two-thirds. Changes for the worse ■ Four new child-targeted sites were introduced for Honey Nut Cheerios, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Pebbles, and Honeycomb. ■ Child visitors increased for 8 of the 10 child-targeted cereal company websites, including increases of 300% for Frootloops. com and CornPops.com, and 150% for AppleJacks.com. ■ Children were at least 3.2 times more likely than adults to visit all child-targeted sites. ■ All companies increased banner advertising on youth websites for most child brands. ❯ General Mills increased banner advertising for all but one and began promoting Cinnamon Toast Crunch. ❯ Kellogg and Post more than doubled advertising for Frosted Flakes, Rice Krispies, Froot Loops, and Pebbles.

Cereal FACTS 26 Results

Marketing to Hispanic and black youth Marketing to Hispanic and black youth Definitions Spanish-language TV TV programming presented in Spanish cable and broadcast programming (e.g., Univision, Telemundo). GRPs for Spanish-language TV are calculated based on the number of Hispanic persons in Nielsen's viewer panel. Website targeted ratio: The relative proportion of Hispanic youth (6-17 years) unique visitors to the website divided by the Hispanic to non-Hispanic proportion of non-Hispanic youth (6-17 years) visitors. For example, if the Hispanic youth to youth non-Hispanic youth targeted ratio for a website is 2.0, then Hispanic youth are twice as likely to visit the website compared with non-Hispanic youth. TV targeted ratio: GRPs for black 2- to 11-year olds divided by GRPs for white 2- to 11-year olds. Provides a measure Black to white children of relative exposure to TV advertising for black children compared to white children. TV targeted ratio: Black GRPs for black 12- to 17-year-olds divided by GRPs for white 12- to 17-year-olds. Provides a to white adolescents measure of relative exposure to TV advertising for black adolescents compared with white adolescents. Website targeted ratio: Provides the relative proportion of black youth (6-17 years) unique visitors to the website divided by Black to all youth the proportion of all youth (6-17 years) visitors.

This section documents exposure to cereal advertising by Figure 10. Trends in Spanish-language TV advertising Hispanic and black youth, and compares their exposure spending for child and family brands by company to that of non-Hispanic and white youth. By definition, $40 ■ advertising on Spanish-language TV is targeted to All child and family Hispanics. In addition, we report ratios of exposure to brands $35 ■ identify potential targeted marketing to black children and General Mills child adolescents on TV and to black and Hispanic youth on brands $30 ■ child-targeted websites. If Hispanic or black youth viewed General Mills family relatively more ads for cereal brands than their non-Hispanic brands $25 ■ or white peers viewed, companies may have targeted Kellogg child brands ■ Hispanic and black youth with their advertising.12 Kellogg family brands $20

Advertising on Spanish-language TV $15 In the past four years, spending on Spanish-language TV $10 advertising for all cereals increased by 156%, from $25.5 million in 2008 to $65.2 million in 2011. Spending on child $5 brands doubled during the period, to $19.8 million for Spanish-language TV advertising spending (million) General Mills and $10.5 million for Kellogg in 2011. The $0 two companies also advertised family brands on Spanish- 2008 2009 2010 2011 language TV, but at a lower level ($8.8 million in total). In Source: Nielsen addition, Kellogg, Post, and General Mills each advertised at least one adult brand on Spanish TV, and advertising for Table 12 presents exposure to Spanish-language TV adult brands almost tripled to $26.0 million in 2011. The total advertising by Hispanic preschoolers (2-5 years), children number of brands that advertised on Spanish-language TV (6-11 years), and adolescents (12-17 years). Hispanic increased from 4 in 2008 to 11 in 2011. youth exposure to cereal advertising on Spanish-language Figure 10 illustrates the sharp increase in advertising TV differed from youth exposure to advertising on English spending on Spanish-language TV by General Mills and TV in several ways. First, in contrast to small reductions in Kellogg for child and family brands from 2008 to 2011. children’s exposure to cereal ads on English TV, exposure Just three child and family brands advertised on Spanish- to Spanish-language ads more than doubled from 2008 to language TV in 2008: General Mills Honey Nut and regular 2011 for all Hispanic youth. In addition, whereas children Cheerios and Kellogg Frosted Flakes. In 2010, General Mills saw more cereal ads on English-language TV compared with added Spanish-language advertising for Cinnamon Toast all other age groups, Hispanic adults saw the most ads on Crunch, and Kellogg began advertising Froot Loops. Kellogg Spanish-language TV (136 ads in 2011). Among Hispanic added Spanish ads for Mini-Wheats in 2011. youth, preschoolers (2-5 years) viewed more cereal ads in

Cereal FACTS 27 Results

Table 12. Exposure to Spanish-language TV ads by Hispanic youth

Spanish-language TV ads viewed Preschoolers Children Adolescents (2-5 years) (6-11 years) (12-17 years) Company 2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 Child brands 22 38 13 28 13 24 General Mills 15 26 9 20 9 17 Kellogg 7 13 4 8 4 8 Family brands 4 12 3 9 3 8 General Mills 4 10 3 7 3 6 Kellogg 0 3 0 2 0 2 Adult brands/company ads 15 39 10 28 9 25 Kellogg 2 10 1 8 1 7 Post 10 20 6 14 6 14 General Mills 3 9 2 7 2 6 Total 41 90 26 66 25 58

Source: Nielsen total than either children or adolescents saw; this relationship higher for adolescents. In contrast, the number of cereal ads was observed for all child and family brands. Finally, viewed by white children declined by 5% during the same Hispanic youth viewed as many ads for adult brands as they period, and ads viewed by white adolescents increased by viewed for child brands on Spanish-language TV; ads for just 3%. As a result, black to white targeted ratios increased family brands were viewed less frequently. from 1.25 to 1.42 for children and from 1.50 to 1.69 for adolescents. Ranking Table 7 provides Spanish-language TV advertising spending by brand, as well as Hispanic children’s exposure Black children also viewed 13% more TV ads in 2011 versus to these ads. In 2011, General Mills brands accounted 2008 for child brands overall and 127% more ads for family for approximately one-half of advertising spending on brands, with increases for 12 of 17 individual child and family Spanish-language TV and one-half of exposure to cereal brands advertised on TV (see Table 13). Compared with ads among all Hispanic age groups. Although Kellogg white children, black children viewed 30% more TV ads for spent more than twice as much as Post, exposure to TV child brands in total. However, they viewed 70% more ads ads for Kellogg brands was approximately 25% higher for for Rice and Cocoa Krispies and 80% to 100% more ads for all age groups. In 2008, Honey Nut Cheerios represented each of the four family brands advertised on TV. Increases 43% of all cereal spending on Spanish-language TV. in black adolescents’ exposure to TV ads totaled 19% for However, by 2011, Honey Nut Cheerios’ share of spending child brands and 123% for family brands. Black adolescents on Spanish-language TV had declined to just 19%, despite also viewed approximately 70% more TV ads compared with a 12% increase in its budget. One adult Post brand (Honey white adolescents, and black to white targeted ratios for Bunches of Oats), had the second highest spending on adolescents were similar for all child and family brands. Spanish-language TV and the highest exposure levels for all These differences in ad exposure for black and white youth age groups. General Mills Cinnamon Toast Crunch ranked were comparable to differences in TV viewing times. In 2011, third in advertising spending and exposure for adults, while black children watched 50% more TV compared with white Cinnamon Toast Crunch and regular Cheerios tied for third children and black adolescents watched 67% more than among children and adolescents. Cinnamon Toast Crunch white adolescents.13 Therefore, it does not appear that cereal also devoted the highest percentage of its TV advertising companies specifically targeted black youth with their TV budget to Spanish-language (29%), while Mini-Wheats had advertising. the lowest (6%).

Exposure to TV advertising by black youth Hispanic and black youth visitors to child- targeted websites From 2008 to 2011, exposure to cereal advertising on TV increased more for black youth relative to their white peers. Hispanic youth (6-17 years) were more likely to visit all In 2011, black children (2-11 years) viewed 885 cereal ads child-targeted advergame websites compared with non- on TV (2.4 ads per day) and black adolescents (12-17 years) Hispanic youth (see Table 14). RiceKrispies.com (a primarily viewed 705 (1.9 ads per day). These numbers were 8% adult-targeted site) was the only website in our analysis higher than ads viewed in 2008 for black children and 16% that had relatively fewer Hispanic than non-Hispanic youth

Cereal FACTS 28 Results

Table 13. Black youth exposure to TV ads for child and family brands

Children (2-11 years) Adolescents (12-17 years) Targeted ratio: Targeted ratio: Ads viewed Black to white Ads viewed Black to white Company Brand 2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 Child brands 594 670 1.2 1.3 369 438 1.5 1.7 Kellogg Rice and Cocoa Krispies 17 5 1.9 1.7 23 7 1.5 1.7 General Mills Honey Nut Cheerios 66 85 1.2 1.4 43 66 1.6 1.8 General Mills Cinnamon Toast Crunch 72 91 1.2 1.4 45 64 1.5 1.7 Kellogg Frosted Flakes 57 61 1.2 1.4 35 53 1.6 1.7 Kellogg Corn Pops 41 14 1.3 1.3 32 10 1.7 1.8 General Mills Reese's Puffs 42 71 1.1 1.3 23 40 1.5 1.7 General Mills Lucky Charms 65 68 1.1 1.3 36 38 1.5 1.7 Post Pebbles 43 57 1.2 1.3 25 33 1.6 1.7 Kellogg Froot Loops 37 68 1.2 1.3 21 42 1.6 1.7 General Mills Trix 42 60 1.1 1.3 23 34 1.5 1.7 General Mills Cookie Crisp 27 24 1.1 1.3 14 13 1.5 1.7 General Mills Cocoa Puffs 57 55 1.1 1.3 31 31 1.5 1.7 Kellogg Apple Jacks 30 11 1.2 1.3 17 6 1.6 1.6 Family brands 36 82 1.7 1.9 48 107 1.3 1.7 General Mills Chex 0 15 - 2.0 0 19 - 1.7 General Mills Cheerios (regular) 9 28 1.6 1.9 12 36 1.5 1.7 Kellogg Mini-Wheats 16 24 1.8 1.9 21 33 1.3 1.7 General Mills Cheerios (except regular and Honey Nut) 6 16 1.7 1.8 7 19 1.3 1.5

Source: Nielsen visitors. The two cereal websites with the most youth visitors 2.3 times more likely to visit ReesesPuffs.com. On average, overall (FrootLoops.com and AppleJacks.com) also had 8,200 Hispanic young people visited the site every month, the most Hispanic youth visitors. However, General Mills’ making it the third most visited cereal website for Hispanic child-targeted sites were relatively more popular with youth (compared with #6 for all youth). Hispanics; Hispanic youth were at least 50% more likely to Black youth (6-17 years) were also more likely to visit 8 visit five General Mills child-targeted sites compared with of 11 child-targeted websites in our analysis compared non-Hispanics. ReesesPuffs.com had the highest Hispanic with white youth (see Table 15). CornPops.com and to non-Hispanic youth targeted ratio: Hispanic youth were

Table 14. Hispanic youth visitors to websites with child Table 15. Black youth visitors to websites with child content content Hispanics (6-17 years) Blacks (6-17 years) Average Targeted Average Targeted monthly ratio: monthly ratio: unique Hispanics unique Black visitors to non- visitors to all Company Website (000) Hispanics Company Website (000) youth General Mills ReesesPuffs.com 8.2 2.3 General Mills TrixWorld.com 6.8 4.0 General Mills LuckyCharms.com 7.6 1.9 Post PebblesPlay.com 9.8 2.0 General Mills TrixWorld.com 2.4 1.8 General Mills ReesesPuffs.com 9.0 1.9 General Mills HoneyDefender.com 5.6 1.7 General Mills LuckyCharms.com 16.2 1.8 General Mills HoneyNutCheerios.com 1.5 1.6 Kellogg FrostedFlakes.com 8.3 1.5 Kellogg AppleJacks.com 13.8 1.4 Kellogg AppleJacks.com 34.3 1.4 Kellogg FrostedFlakes.com 4.3 1.4 General Mills HoneyDefender.com 11.8 1.4 Kellogg CornPops.com 5.9 1.3 Kellogg FrootLoops.com 32.6 1.3 Post PebblesPlay.com 3.1 1.3 Kellogg RiceKrispies.com 2.9 1.2 Kellogg FrootLoops.com 15.5 1.1 Kellogg CornPops.com 11.9 1.0 Kellogg RiceKrispies.com 0.5 0.5 General Mills HoneyNutCheerios.com 0.7 0.5

Source: comScore Media Metrix Key Measures Report (January – Source: comScore Media Metrix Key Measures Report (January – December 2011) December 2011)

Cereal FACTS 29 Results

HoneyNutCheerios.com were the only websites visited Summary of marketing to Hispanic and black disproportionately less often by black youth. Black youth youth visited the AppleJacks.com and FrootLoops.com websites most often, averaging more than 30,000 unique visitors per From 2008 to 2011, Spanish-language TV advertising for month in 2011. In addition, LuckyCharms.com, CornPops. cereals, including child brands, more than doubled and com, and HoneyDefender.com averaged more than 10,000 Hispanic youth exposure to these ads increased by 2.5 to black youth visitors per month. Black youth were four 3 times. In addition, black children did not experience the times more likely to visit TrixWorld.com compared with all decline in TV advertising exposure experienced by white youth, and almost twice as likely to visit PebblesPlay.com, children from 2008 to 2011, but saw substantial increases, ReesesPuffs.com, and LuckyCharms.com. especially for child and family brands. However, differences in exposure to TV ads for white and black youth were comparable to differences in the amounts of TV they viewed. Black and Hispanic youth visited nearly all child-targeted websites disproportionately more often compared with all youth and non-Hispanic youth. Marketing to Hispanic and Black Youth Changes for the better ■ No positive changes were found Changes for the worse ■ The number of cereal brands that advertised on Spanish-language TV increased from four in 2008 to 11 in 2011; spending increased by 156%. ■ Hispanic preschoolers’ exposure to cereal ads on Spanish-language TV increased by 120% and children’s exposure increased 154%. ■ Black children saw 8% more cereal ads on TV in 2011 versus 2008, and black adolescents saw 16% more. In contrast, white children saw 5% fewer ads, and white adolescents saw just 3% more. Black children’s exposure to ads for child brands increased by 13%. ■ Child-targeted sites were more popular with Hispanic than non-Hispanic youth, especially the General Mills sites. ■ Black youth were more likely to visit eight child-targeted websites compared with all youth.

Cereal FACTS 30 Results

Total cereal advertising exposure Total cereal advertising exposure Definitions TV gross ratings points Measure of the per capita number of TV advertisements viewed by a specific demographic group (GRPs) (e.g., children 2-11 years) over a specific period of time (e.g., one year). GRPs divided by 100 provide the number of ads viewed by the demographic group, on average, for the time period. Website GRP equivalents Measure of website exposure comparable to TV GRPs, defined as the percentage of the demographic group visiting the website during a specific time period multiplied by the amount of time spent on the site times 100. Banner ad GRP Measure of the per capita number of banner advertisements viewed by visitors to youth websites equivalents during the year. Provides an exposure measure comparable to TV GRPs.

Due primarily to the discontinuation of Millsberry.com, the declined, resulting in 34% less total exposure to General most popular and engaging child-targeted website in 2008, Mills advertising in total. Exposure to Kellogg advertising total child exposure to advertising for child and family brands in total declined by 4%; increases in website visits and declined by 31%, from an estimated 951 ads in 2008 to 653 banner ads for its brands were offset by a reduction in TV in 2011. Table 16 provides child and adolescents exposure ad exposure. Children were exposed to 42% fewer total ads to TV and internet advertising for child and family brands. for Post cereals, including fewer TV and banner ads (due Exposure to TV ads for General Mills brands increased, but to the discontinuation of Postopia.com) and lower website exposure to its child-targeted websites and banner ads exposure.

Table 16. Child (2-11 years) exposure to TV and internet advertising for child and family brands

Website GRP Banner ad GRP Average total TV GRPs equivalents equivalents ad exposure* Company Brand 2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 General Mills Cinnamon Toast Crunch 6,308 6,750 262 0 599 1,346 71.7 81.0 General Mills Lucky Charms 5,804 5,332 2,898 14 8,390 2,421 170.9 77.7 General Mills Honey Nut Cheerios 5,867 6,402 2,876 14 6,808 868 155.5 72.8 Kellogg Froot Loops 3,222 5,525 14 84 589 1,211 38.2 68.2 General Mills Reese's Puffs 3,723 5,656 328 19 749 1,090 48.0 67.6 General Mills Trix 3,785 4,770 2,985 2 7,909 611 146.8 53.8 Kellogg Frosted Flakes 4,581 4,612 0 8 76 697 46.6 53.2 Post Pebbles 3,796 4,669 765 12 102 177 46.6 48.6 General Mills Cocoa Puffs 5,018 4,409 0 0 0 0 50.2 44.1 General Mills Cookie Crisp 2,356 1,950 2 0 0 0 23.6 19.5 General Mills Cheerios (regular) 841 1,672 5 1 358 174 12.0 18.5 Kellogg Apple Jacks 2,584 874 29 51 616 650 32.3 15.7 Kellogg Mini-Wheats 964 1,329 0 0 40 106 10.0 14.4 Kellogg Corn Pops 3,450 1,096 8 46 614 120 40.7 12.6 General Mills Cheerios (except regular and Honey Nut) 485 1,086 0 0 0 0 4.9 10.9 General Mills Chex 48 818 2 0 0 0 0.5 8.2 Kellogg Rice and Cocoa Krispies 1,000 282 5 2 80 332 10.9 6.2 Quaker Life 377 0 0 0 0 0 3.8 0.0 Post Honeycomb 2,921 0 744 0 100 0 37.6 0.0

Website GRP Banner ad GRP Average total TV GRPs equivalents equivalents ad exposure* Company 2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 General Mills 34,235 38,845 9,358 51 24,812 6,509 684 454 Kellogg 15,801 13,718 56 191 2,015 3,117 179 170 Post 6,717 4,669 1,509 12 202 177 84 49 Quaker 377 0 0 0 0 0 4 0

*Total GRPs/100

Cereal FACTS 31 Results

Despite overall declines in advertising exposure, children were the same brands on the top-10 list in 2008. Kellogg continued to view 44 to 81 ads each for nine child cereal Corn Pops was number nine in 2008, but fell to 13th in 2011. brands in 2011. General Mills brands represented seven of In 2011, General Mills Cookie Crisp made the list at number the child brands advertised most to children (see Figure 11). ten. Cinnamon Toast Crunch overtook Lucky Charms, Honey Two Kellogg brands and one Post brand also made the list. Nut Cheerios and Trix (the three products advertised most in With two exceptions, the brands on the top-10 list in 2011 2008) as the most advertised child or family brand in 2011.

Figure 11. Brands advertised most to children in 2011* 81 ads 78 ads 73 ads 68 ads 68 ads

54 ads 53 ads 48 ads 44 ads 20 ads

*Average total ads viewed by children (2-11 years) in 2011 on TV and the internet

Cereal FACTS 32 Conclusion

Cereal companies have made some progress in websites; while Postopia ranked sixth in unique child improving the nutritional quality of children’s cereals. visitors and second in time spent.6 With the discontinuation of Millsberry.com, General Mills also reduced banner However, they continue to aggressively market their advertising on youth-targeted websites by 43%. We estimate least nutritious products directly to young children. that the discontinuation of these websites resulted in In the first Cereal FACTS report, we urged cereal companies children viewing on average 295 fewer cereal ads per year, to help improve children’s diet and health by substantially a reduction of 31% of total ad exposure from 2008. Cap’n reducing marketing of their least nutritious products directly Crunch and Envirokidz Organic also discontinued their child- to children and finding creative ways to encourage children targeted websites, although these sites did not have enough to consume the healthful products in their portfolios. Cereal visitors to measure exposure through comScore in 2008. FACTS 2012 documents their progress in achieving these On TV, Post stopped advertising Honeycomb, and Kellogg objectives. Specifically, the report quantifies changes in and General Mills reduced advertising to children for three the nutritional quality of ready-to-eat cereals and children’s child brands each (Corn Pops, Apple Jacks, Rice and Cocoa exposure to cereal-company marketing from 2008 to 2012. Krispies, Lucky Charms, Cocoa Puffs, and Cookie Crisp). In Although we did find some changes for the better, General total, children viewed 21 fewer TV ads for Kellogg children’s Mills, Kellogg, and Post continue to pursue a marketing cereals and 20 fewer ads for Post children’s cereals in strategy that bombards young children with TV and other 2011 versus 2008. These reductions were greater for advertising for high-sugar cereals, while promoting their preschoolers, who saw 19% fewer ads for Kellogg children’s more nutritious family cereals to parents and reserving their cereals and 33% fewer ads for Post children’s cereals. most nutritious products for advertising to adults for their own consumption. These findings also highlight numerous limitations to the potential effectiveness of industry self- Changes for the worse regulatory initiatives in improving children’s diet and health. From 2008 to 2011, despite reductions in TV advertising for three brands, total exposure to TV advertising for Changes for the better General Mills child and family cereals increased by 10% for preschoolers (2-5 years) and by 16% for children (6-11 Since the first Cereal FACTS was published in 2009, General years). General Mills advertised four of its child brands Mills, Kellogg, and Post have all committed to improving more in 2011 compared with 2008, posting increases in ads 1-3 the nutritional quality of their children’s cereals. General viewed by children of 55% for Reese’s Puffs and 29% for Trix. Mills and Kellogg delivered on this promise with reductions As a result, General Mills’ share of children’s exposure to TV in sodium. General Mills also reduced the sugar in its child ads for child and family cereal brands increased from 61% in brands and is halfway towards fulfilling its promise to reduce 2008 to 68% in 2011. Kellogg also increased TV advertising 4 the sugar per serving to “single digits:” As of May 2012, 5 of for two child brands, and Post increased ads for its one child 10 varieties of General Mills’ advertised child brands had 9 brand. Children saw 79% more ads for Froot Loops, 25% grams of sugar per serving. Only Post did not deliver on its more ads for Pebbles, and 6% more ads for Frosted Flakes promise. The company introduced a new variety of Pebbles in 2011 versus 2008. (Boulders Chocolate Peanut Butter) that contains 8 grams of sugar and 2 grams of fiber per serving, but the nutritional The discontinuation of popular cereal company-sponsored quality of its other Pebbles cereals worsened due to a advergame websites and associated banner advertising was reduction in fiber. However, from 2006 to 2012, the overall also partially offset by the introduction of new child-targeted quality of children’s cereals steadily improved, and new websites and increased banner advertising for individual varieties introduced since 2009 were better than previously brands and existing websites. Post replaced Postopia. existing products. com with PebblesPlay.com, and General Mills introduced advergame sites for Honey Nut Cheerios (HoneyDefender. These analyses also highlight reductions in child- com) and Cinnamon Toast Crunch (CrazySquares.com). In targeted advertising for some brands. Arguably the most addition, Kellogg nearly doubled banner advertising for its consequential change was that General Mills and Post child brands; General Mills increased banner advertising for discontinued their Millsberry.com and Postopia.com Honey Nut Cheerios (+185%) and Lucky Charms (+58%) websites. In 2008, 387,000 children visited Millsberry.com and began advertising Cinnamon Toast Crunch on third- 5 and averaged 66 minutes on the site every month. Visits party children’s websites; and banner advertising doubled to Postopia.com were approximately one-half as frequent for Post Pebbles. (154,000 children averaging 30 minutes per month). An analysis conducted in 2009 showed that Millsberry.com Advertising spending to promote children’s cereals also ranked first among all food company-sponsored advergame increased by 34%, and companies spent more to advertise sites in number of child visitors and time spent on the child brands than they spent on adult brands in 2011.

Cereal FACTS 33 Conclusion

Conversely, in 2008 they had spent 41% more to advertise products to parents, not directly to children. However, adult brands versus child brands. Although children (6-11 companies continue to target their most nutritious products years) saw similar numbers of TV ads for these products to adults for adult consumption. The cereals marketed to in 2011 and 2008, and preschoolers (2-5 years) saw 8% children contain 56% more sugar, 52% less fiber, and 50% fewer in 2011, companies increased their advertising more sodium compared with adult-targeted cereals. to other age groups and in other media. For example, Children also continue to see more advertising for cereals adolescent exposure to TV ads for General Mills children’s than for any other category of packaged food or beverage.8 cereals increased by 35%, indicating that the company In 2011, cereal ads represented 22% of all TV ads for may be refocusing its marketing on a somewhat older youth packaged foods viewed by children, down slightly from 25% audience. In addition, General Mills increased spending in 2007. However, on average, preschoolers (2-5 years) on internet advertising for child and family brands by 49%, saw 1.6 cereal ads every day in 2011, and children (6-11 investing $2.4 to $3.1 million each to advertise Honey Nut years) saw 1.9 ads. Children also saw 53% more cereal ads Cheerios, Lucky Charms, and Cinnamon Toast Crunch online in total than adults saw, and 80% of these ads promoted in 2011. All three brands also posted increases in banner child brands (i.e., the least nutritious products) compared advertising on youth websites, an advertising medium that with 36% of cereal ads viewed by adults. On the internet, is less expensive than TV and more difficult for parents to a few cereal company-sponsored websites received as monitor. Lucky Charms devoted the highest proportion of its many child visitors during some quarters in 2011 as the budget (20%) to internet advertising. Kellogg and Post also most popular sites sponsored by other food companies. For appear to have increased their focus on advertising directed example, FrootLoops.com averaged 162,000 child visitors to parents. Both companies more than doubled advertising per month in 2011 and AppleJacks.com averaged 116,000. in magazines (to $28 million by Kellogg and $5 million by With just one quarter of data available on comScore in Post), outspending General Mills in this medium. Kellogg 2011, HoneyDefender.com averaged 171,000 child visitors also increased TV advertising to adults for Froot Loops (up per month. These numbers are comparable to the 189,000 three-fold) and Frosted Flakes (+77%). children who visited McDonald’s HappyMeal.com per month Finally, Hispanic and black youth exposure to cereal in 2009 (the second most popular food company site for advertising increased from 2008 to 2011. This trend raises children, after Millsberry.com).9 In addition, children were concerns for public health as these young people also face exposed to an estimated 98 ads on average in 2011 for the highest rates of obesity and related disease.7 Cereal children’s cereals on popular children’s websites, such as companies increased targeted marketing to Hispanics Nick.com and Disney.com. on Spanish-language TV. Advertising spending on this The bottom line is that General Mills, Kellogg, and Post medium increased 2.5 times from 2008 to 2011. In 2008, four continue to aggressively target children with advertising for brands advertised on Spanish-language TV. By 2011, seven products such as Reese’s Puffs, Froot Loops, and Pebbles additional brands had Spanish TV campaigns, including Froot that rank at the bottom of their products in nutrition and at the Loops and Cinnamon Toast Crunch. As a result, exposure to top in added sugar. The majority of cereal advertisements cereal ads on Spanish-language TV increased by 120% for that children see on TV (53%) promote products consisting Hispanic preschoolers and 154% for 6- to 11-year-olds – on of one-third or more sugar (see Figure 12). One 30-gram top of the ads they viewed on English TV. In addition, although serving of these cereals contains as much sugar as 30 white children saw 5% fewer TV ads for child brands in 2011 grams of Chips Ahoy cookies (3 cookies). Just 12% of versus 2008, black children saw 8% more of these ads. Black the cereal TV ads viewed by children promote products adolescents also had an increase of 13% in TV ads viewed for with 26% or less sugar, compared with nearly one-half of child brands, while white adolescents viewed just 3% more. ads seen by adults. Although the 9 or 10 grams of sugar Hispanic and black children were also more likely to visit per serving in children’s cereals today is less than the the majority of child-targeted websites compared with non- 14 or 15 grams these products contained six years ago, Hispanic and all children. they are still high-sugar products that children should not consume regularly. Our research shows that children will More of the same consume on average 61 grams of these cereals for breakfast (approximately twice the indicated serving size),10 adding The net effect of these changes is that cereal marketing up to 21 grams (more than 5 tsp) of sugar. However, the to children in 2012 looks much the same as it did in 2009. American Heart Association recommends that children Cereal companies continue to market their least nutritious consume no more than 20 grams of added sugar per day.11 products directly to children. Companies do make nutritious Before they leave the house in the morning, children eating cereals. For example, regular Cheerios and many varieties these presweetened cereals will have consumed as much of Mini-Wheats have some of the highest nutrition scores sugar as they should eat in an entire day. of all cereals, but General Mills and Kellogg market these

Cereal FACTS 34 Conclusion

Figure 12. Sugar content of cereals in TV ads viewed Children (2-11 years) Adults (18-49 years)

7% 5% 17% 27% Sugar content 53% ■ <20% 35% ■ 20-26% 35% ■ 27-33% 21% ■ >33%

Limitations of industry self-regulation obesity” through marketing to children (the goal of the IWG) and the food industry’s goal for self-regulation. The CFBAI This analysis points out several shortcomings of the claims success in enhancing “the nutrition profile of foods Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), advertised to kids”15 – and our data concur that companies the food industry’s self-regulatory program on food marketing have improved the nutrition profile of the high-sugar cereals to children. We did not find any evidence that companies that have traditionally been advertised directly to children. were not technically complying with their pledges on However, these improvements do not make products such advertising to children. However, numerous examples in as Reese’s Puffs, Froot Loops, or Cocoa Pebbles nutritious this report illustrate how loopholes in the pledges allow foods that will help improve children’s diet and health. companies to continue to market to children to increase consumption of their least nutritious products. This discrepancy is especially meaningful in the cereal category where companies already have nutritious products in their portfolios. However, rather than advertise their Nutritious versus “improved nutrition profile” more nutritious cereals in place of high-sugar children’s cereals, companies have chosen to discredit the stronger As has been noted in recent evaluations of food advertising criteria. For example, in discussing the IWG recommended to children,12,13 CFBAI companies established their own nutrition standards, General Mills claimed that “literally all nutrition criteria for products that may be in child-directed cereals marketed by General Mills would be barred from advertising. As our findings illustrate, these criteria do advertising,”16 and the CFBAI commented that “the IWG’s not align with standards established by government specific goals for nutrients to limit and for food groups to organizations to identify nutritious products that children include exceed what reasonably can be accomplished within should consume. Just two of the cereals approved by five years.”17 In apparent contradiction to these statements, companies to include in child-directed advertising met the 27% of the family cereals we evaluated and 49% of adult nutrition criteria established by the U.S. Interagency Working cereals met the IWG limits on sugar, fat, and sodium, Group on Food Marketed to Children (IWG), the Office of including 11 varieties of Kellogg Frosted Mini-Wheats and Communications (OFCOM) in the United Kingdom, or the one Cheerios variety. Therefore, cereal companies already U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Women, Infants and make nutritious products that meet independent nutrition Children (WIC) supplemental food program. The new CFBAI standards and could be advertised to children, if they chose uniform nutrition criteria scheduled to be implemented by to do so. Of note, General Mills and its Cascadian Farm 2013 also fall short of these standards in limits on sugar (10 subsidiary had 10 cereals that met the IWG nutrient limits, g per serving) and sodium (290 mg per serving). In addition, whereas Kellogg and its Kashi subsidiary had 35. they allow companies to satisfy the requirement for “nutrition components to encourage” through fortification, rather than requiring foods to contain a meaningful amount of healthful Defining “child-directed advertising” food groups (e.g., whole grains).14 The second major limitation of food marketing self-regulation These differences in nutrition standards highlight a key through the CFBAI is companies’ definitions of child-directed discrepancy between public health objectives of “improving advertising (i.e., the types of marketing in which they may children’s diets and addressing the high rates of childhood advertise only products that meet their nutrition standards),

Cereal FACTS 35 Conclusion which exclude many forms of marketing commonly used concept has been tested on boxes of Honey Nut Cheerios. to promote foods to children. Although the marketing we Although cereal companies did not appear to target children examined technically complied with cereal companies’ directly in social media, recent proposals to allow children CFBAI pledges, we found that these pledges do not to join Facebook would provide another avenue for cereal accomplish what they appear to promise. companies to reach children directly in a medium that is not “primarily directed to children.”24 Perhaps most egregious is that cereal companies continue to advertise to children under age 6 extensively on TV and Cereal companies also appear to have expanded the internet. General Mills has pledged it “will not target any advertising to a somewhat older youth audience who are not advertising to preschool children,”18 and Kellogg promises protected by CFBAI pledges (i.e., children older than 12). to “continue its practice of not advertising to children under For example, children (6-11 years) saw 6% more TV ads the age of 6 years.”19 However, as this report documents, for Frosted Flakes in 2011 versus 2008, while adolescents preschoolers saw on average 471 TV ads for child brands (12-17 years) saw an increase of 41%. Similarly, children in 2011 (1.3 ads per day), just 19% fewer ads than seen by saw 11% more Cinnamon Toast Crunch ads compared with children in cereal companies’ purported target market (6- to 31% more for adolescents. The World Health Organization 11-year-olds). On Spanish-language TV, preschoolers saw (WHO)25 and the IWG26 recommend additional protections more ads for all advertised brands than either children or from food marketing for this slightly older, but still vulnerable, adolescents saw. Despite company pledges to the contrary, age group. It is important to note that the CFBAI does not preschoolers continue to see hundreds of TV ads for cereals include “tweens” (i.e., 12- to 14-year-olds) in its definition because the CFBAI defines advertising directed to children of children, although advertisers specifically target this age under 6 as advertising that occurs in media in which group because they are highly susceptible to marketing children under 6 make up 35% or more of the audience.20 influence.27 We challenge these companies to provide one example of Since 2008, cereal companies have increased appeals programming with an audience consisting of 35% or more to parents using messages that imply nutrition benefits of children under 6 that accepts commercial advertising. In high-sugar cereals. For example, General Mills promoted its effect, this criterion is meaningless. Big G kids’ cereals (Lucky Charms, Cocoa Puffs, Cinnamon Similarly, Kellogg has a “Playground” section of its adult- Toast Crunch, and Trix) to parents in TV ads that proclaim targeted Rice Krispies website that contains advergames, “Give your kids more of what they need to do their best. including a section entitled “Pre-K Games.”21 However, Grow up strong with Big G kids’ cereals.” Similarly, Kellogg this website does not meet the company’s definition of boasted “9 out of 10 kids don't get enough fiber… Kellogg “advertising directed to children under 6” as the entire site makes Fiber fun!" Spanish-language magazine ads for Fruity contains predominantly adult content. Therefore, children and Cocoa Pebbles from Post encouraged parents to “Feed under 6 do not make up 35% or more of the audience. them with fun. Consent to your kids with delicious, crunchy Of note, one Pre-K game on RiceKrispies.com is entitled, flakes with Vitamin D.” Our research has demonstrated that “Ready! Aim! Cocoa!” in which players fling cocoa beans such messages mislead many parents into believing these into bowls of chocolate cereal pieces, even though Kellogg products are healthier than other cereals and make them does not include Cocoa Krispies on its list of products that more likely to buy the products to serve their children.28 may be featured in child-directed advertising. Kellogg Krave cereal: A case study of Signs of things to come? loopholes in the CFBAI This research also uncovered some new developments in the Kellogg’s introduction of Krave cereal in 2012 demonstrates marketing of children’s cereals. Companies have begun to how loopholes in the CFBAI allow companies to target introduce new technologically sophisticated forms of child- products to a “tween” audience. Although this product meets targeted marketing. For example, Kellogg launched a mobile Kellogg’s current nutrition standards for foods that may be version of the Apple Jacks “Race to the Bowl Rally” game in advertising to children,a the company does not list Krave that is also featured on its child-targeted website – the first as a product that may be in child-directed advertising.29 food company-sponsored children’s advergame adapted However, analyses of exposure to TV ads for Krave cereal for use with smartphones and iPads.22 General Mills’ Chief reveals that advertisers do not need to advertise in child- Marketing Officer promises interactive cereal boxes using directed programming to reach large numbers of children. quick response (QR) codes, “kids could point a smartphone Children have seen more TV ads for Krave since its at the box and ‘see visual surprises.’”23 He notes that the introduction than individuals in any other age group. From a It is not clear why Kellogg does not advertise Krave in child-directed programming as it meets Kellogg's current nutrition standards for foods that may be in child-directed advertising. There are currently two varieties of Krave; they contain 10-11 grams of sugar, 1 gram of saturated fat, and 95-100 milligrams of sodium per serving.

Cereal FACTS 36 Conclusion

January through March 2012, children (6-11 years) saw an in their portfolios. Yet the products featured in child- average of 11.2 Krave ads, adolescents (12-17 years) saw targeted advertising in this report are nearly identical to the 10.6 ads, and adults (18-49 years) saw 4.9.30 Although 70% products featured in the 2009 report. The CFBAI and cereal of children’s exposure to TV ads for Krave cereal occurred companies also protested more stringent nutrition standards on Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network, these ads appeared for foods marketed to children as proposed by four U.S. during programs that are not "child-directed" according to government agencies, claiming they were too difficult the CFBAI. Programs such as “SpongeBob,” “Adventure to achieve.34 However, our analysis revealed numerous Time,” and “Victorious” (the programs during which these cereals that meet the IWG limits on sugar, fat, and sodium. ads appeared most often) have audiences consisting of Our question remains, why can’t cereal companies market less than 35% children under 12, and thus do not qualify as Frosted Mini-Wheats or Fuel directly to children advertising “primarily directed to children.”31 using cartoon characters and fun, cool themes? Convincing children that they must have Reese’s Puffs or Froot Loops Within a few months, Krave also became one of the most may maximize corporate profits, but why is it acceptable? popular cereal Facebook pages with more than 300,000 “likes” as of June 13, 2012. From January through March, We have asked cereal companies to stop advertising their Krave’s Facebook page averaged 157,000 unique visitors least nutritious products directly to children, not to stop each month – 24% of them were children 6-14 years old.32 selling these products. Of the 124 cereal brands included in Krave cereal boxes featured a QR code that connected to its our analysis, the majority of brands were not advertised on Facebook page when scanned using a smartphone. Of note, TV at all. This request involves just 13 brands from General the CFBAI does not include marketing messages on product Mills, Kellogg, and Post that were advertised directly to packaging as advertising covered by company pledges.33 children in 2011. Advertising to children increases product sales,35 but it is not a prerequisite for companies to sell their products. Cap’n Crunch is an example of a brand that Recommendations was previously targeted to children, but is now marketed to adults with a “nostalgia” theme. TV advertising for Cap’n Cereal companies have expressed a commitment to foster Crunch also appears to have been discontinued. We have public health and be part of the solution to childhood applauded PepsiCo for this shift in their marketing strategy.36 obesity. However, they cannot do so by making incremental improvements in the sugar and sodium content of children’s The bottom line is that if General Mills, Kellogg, and Post cereals, while continuing to aggressively market these truly want to help parents raise healthy children, they must: products (their least nutritious cereals) to children as young ■ Significantly reduce the hundreds of advertisements for as two years old. Foods that contain one spoonful of sugar in high-sugar cereals that children see every year; and every three spoons of cereal are not healthful products that children should regularly consume. ■ Use their substantial resources and creativity to find ways to encourage children to consume the healthful products In the first Cereal FACTS report, we encouraged cereal in their portfolios. companies to replace advertising for high-sugar cereals with advertising to children for the nutritious products We urge them to do the right thing for children’s health.

Cereal FACTS 37 Endnotes

9. Kellogg Company (2011, July 14). Kellogg Company comments Executive Summary on the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketing to 1. Harris JL, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD, et al. (2009). Cereal Children preliminary proposed nutrition principles to guide FACTS: Evaluating the nutrition quality and marketing of industry self-regulatory efforts request for comment. Available at children’s cereals. Available at www.cerealfacts.org. http://www.bbb.org/us/storage/0/Shared%20Documents/Kellogg- IWG-NUTRITION%20Comments.pdf 2. Kolish ED, Hernandez M, Blanchard K (2011). The Children’s Food & Beverage Advertising Initiative in action. Available 10. The Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI) at www.bbb.org/us/storage/16/documents/cfbai/cfbai-2010- (2011, December). A report on compliance and implementation progress-report.pdf. during 2010 and a five year retrospective: 2006-2011. Available at http://www.bbb.org/us/childrens-food-and-beverage- 3. Ibid. advertising-initiative/ 4. Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity (2012). Trends in 11. CFBAI (2011). television food advertising to young people: 2011 update. Available at www.yaleruddcenter.org. 12. Lukovitz K (2011, July 15). Industry unveils new marketing- to-kids standards. Marketing Daily. Available at http://www. 5. Apple Jacks “Race to the Bowl Rally.” Available at itunes.apple. mediapost.com/publications/article/154139/industry-unveils- com/us/app/apple-jacks-race-to-bowl-rally/id421398910?mt=8 new-marketing-to-kids-standards.html 6. Graham J (2012, Jan 31). General Mills spoons up digital fun 13. CFBAI (2011). on cereal boxes. USA Today. Available at www.usatoday.com/ tech/columnist/talkingtech/story/2012-01-31/general-mills- 14. Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity (2011). Trends in tech/52906314/1 television food advertising to young people: 2010 update. Rudd Report. Available at www.yaleruddcenter.org. 7. Children’s Food & Beverage Advertising Initiative (April 2012). Food and beverage products that meet participants’ approved 15. Powell LM, Schermbeck RM, Szczypka G, Chaloupka FJ, & nutrition standards that may be in child-directed advertising. Braunschweig CL (2011). Trends in nutritional content of food Available at www.bbb.org/us/childrens-food-and-beverage- advertisements seen by children in the United States. Archives advertising-initiative/. of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 165 (12), 1078-1086. 8. Children’s Food & Beverage Advertising Initiative (March 2012). 16. Pestano P, Yeshua E, & Houlihan J (2011). Sugar in children’s Summary of participants’ definitions of advertising primarily cereals: Popular brands pack more sugar than snack cakes and directed to children under 12 and policies on not directing cookies. Environmental Working Group. Available at static.ewg. advertising to children under 6. Available at www.bbb.org/us/ org/reports/2011/cereals/pdf/2011-EWG-Cereals-Report.pdf childrens-food-and-beverage-advertising-initiative/. 17. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (2011, April 28). Interagency 9. comScore MediaBuilderReport. Working Group seeks input on proposed voluntary principles for marketing food to children. Press release. Available at www.ftc. gov/opa/2011/04/foodmarket.shtm 18. Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children Background (IWG) (2011). Preliminary proposed nutrition principles to guide 1. Harris JL, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD, et al. (2009). Cereal industry self-regulatory efforts. Request for comments. Available FACTS: Evaluating the nutrition quality and marketing of at www.ftc.gov/os/2011/04/110428foodmarketproposedguide. children’s cereals. Available at www.cerealfacts.org. pdf 2. Harris JL, Schwartz MB, Ustjanauskas A, Ohri-Vachaspati P, & 19. IWG (2011). Brownell KD (2011). Effects of serving high-sugar cereals on 20. FTC (2011). children’s breakfast-eating behavior. Pediatrics, 127(1), 71-76. 21. General Mills (2011, July 14). Interagency Working Group on 3. Castetbon K, Harris JL, & Schwartz MB (2011). Purchases Food Marketed to Children. Comments on proposed nutrition of ready-to-eat cereals in the U.S. vary according to standards and general comments and proposed marketing sociodemographic characteristics across nutritional content definitions. Available at http://www.bbb.org/us/storage/0/ and child-targeted marketing. Public Health Nutrition, FirstView Shared%20Documents/General%20Mills%20Comment%20 article, 1-10. %287-14-11%29.pdf 4. Harris JL, Thompson J, Schwartz MB, & Brownell KD (2011). 22. Kellogg Company (2011, July 14). Nutrition-related claims on children’s cereals: What do they mean to parents and do they influence purchasing?Public Health 23. Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. (CBBB) (2011, July Nutrition, 14(12), 2207-2212. 14). Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed ot Children. General comments and comments on the proposed nutrition 5. Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI) principles and marketing definitions. Available at http://www.bbb. (2009, October 1). Post Foods, LLC pledge. http://www.bbb.org/ org/us/storage/0/Shared%20Documents/CFBAI%20IWG%20 us/storage/0/Shared%20Documents/Post%20CFBAI%20Pledge. Comment%207-14-2011.pdf pdf 24. Wilson D & Roberts J (2012, April 27). Special report: 6. General Mills (2009, December 9). General Mills to reduce sugar How Washington went soft on childhood obesity. in cereals. Press release. Available at http://www.generalmills. Reuters.com. Available at www.reuters.com/assets/ com/Media/NewsReleases/Library/2009/December/sugar_ print?aid=USBRE83Q0ED20120427 reduced_in_cereals.aspx 25. Vladeck comment http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/10/ 7. General Mills (2011). Benefits of cereal. Available at http:// foodmarketing.shtm generalmills.com/~/media/Files/benefits_cereal_2012.ashx 26. Wilson & Roberts (2012). 8. Lukovitz K (2010, December 10). Post lowers sugar in two pebbles varieties. Marketing Daily. Available at www.mediapost. 27. General Mills (2011, July 14). com/publications/article/141955/post-lowers-sugar-in-two- pebbles-varieties.html

Cereal FACTS 38 Endnotes

6. Harris JL, Speers SE, Schwartz M, Brownell KD (2012). U.S. food Results company branded games on the internet: Children’s exposure 1. The Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI) and effects on snack consumption. Journal of Children and (2011, September). Food and beverage products that meet Media, 6(1), 51-68. participants’ approved nutrition standards that may be in 7. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Bit BK, Flegal KM (2012). Prevalence of child-directed advertising. Available at http://www.bbb.org/us/ obesity and trends in body mass index among US children and childrens-food-and-beverage-advertising-initiative/ adolescents, 1999-2010. JAMA, 307(5), 483-490. 2. CFBAI (2009, October). A report on compliance and 8. Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity (2012). Trends in implementation during 2008. Available at http://www.bbb.org/us/ television food advertising to young people: 2011 update. Rudd storage/0/Shared%20Documents/finalbbbs.pdf Report. Available at www.yaleruddcenter.org 3. CFBAI (2012, April). Food and beverage products that meet 9. Harris et al. (2012). participants’ approved nutrition standards that may be in child- directed advertising. Available at www.bbb.org/us/storage/16/ 10. Harris JL, Schwartz MB, Ustjanauskas A, Ohri-Vachaspati P, & documents/cfbai/CFBAI%20Product%20List%20April%202012. Brownell KD (2011). Effects of serving high-sugar cereals on pdf children’s breakfast-eating behavior. Pediatrics, 127(1), 71-76. 4. The data used for average monthly unique visitors is an average 11. Added sugar limits derived from empty calorie allowances of comScore Media Metrix Key Measures Report’s data for the from ChooseMyPlate.gov and American Heart Association measure : Total Unique Visitors. recommendations: Johnson RK, Appel LJ, Brands M, et al. (2009). Dietary intake and cardiovascular health: A 5. The data used for average visits per month is comScore Media scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Metrix Key Measures Report’s data for the measure: Average Circulation, 120(11), 1011-1020. Visits per Visitor. 12. Powell LM, Schermbeck RM, Szczypka G, Chaloupka FJ, & 6. The data used for average time spent per visit is comScore Braunschweig CL (2011). Trends in nutritional content of food Media Metrix Key Measures Report’s data for the measure: advertisements seen by children in the United States. Archives Average Minutes per Visit. of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 165 (12), 1078-1086. 7. www.capncrunch.com Kunkel, Powell, etc. 8. The data used for unique viewers per month is comScore Ad 13. Kunkel D, McKinley C, Wright P (2009). The impact of industry Metrix Advertiser Report’s data for the measure: Advertising self-regulation on the nutritional quality of foods advertised on Exposed Unique Visitors. television to children. Available at www.childrennow.org/uploads/ documents/adstudy_2009.pdf 9. The data used for ads viewed per viewer per month is comScore Ad Metrix Advertiser Report’s data for the measure: Average 14. Kolish ED, Hernandez M, Blanchard K (2011 December). The Frequency. Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative in action. A report on compliance and implementation during 2010 and a 10. Proportion of ads viewed on youth websites and average five year retrospective: 2006-2011. Available at www.bbb.org/us/ number of ad views on youth websites per month were not childrens-food-and-beverage-advertising-initiative/ defined by comScore, but by the researchers (detailed definitions in Methods). 15. Kolish et al. (2011). 11. The data used to calculate average number of ad views on youth 16. General Mills (2011, July 14). Interagency Working Group on websites per month is comScore Ad Metrix Advertiser Report’s Food Marketed to Children. Comments on proposed nutrition data for the measure: Display Ad Impressions. standards and general comments and proposed marketing definitions. Available at www.bbb.org/us/storage/0/Shared%20 12. Grier SE, Kumanyika S (2010). Targeted marketing and public Documents/General%20Mills%20Comment%20%287-14-11%29. health. Annual Review of Public Health, 31, 349-369. pdf 13. Nielsen (2011). 17. Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. (CBBB) (2011, July 14). Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children. General comments and comments on the proposed nutrition principles and marketing definitions. Available at www.bbb. Conclusion org/us/storage/0/Shared%20Documents/CFBAI%20IWG%20 Comment%207-14-2011.pdf 1. General Mills (2009, December 9). General Mills to reduce sugar in cereals. Press release. Available at http://www.generalmills. 18. CFBAI (2010, July 14). General Mills pledge. Available at http:// com/Media/NewsReleases/Library/2009/December/sugar_ www.bbb.org/us/storage/0/Shared%20Documents/General%20 reduced_in_cereals.aspx Mills%20CFBAI%20Pledge%20July%202010.pdf 2. Kellogg Company (2011, July 14). Kellogg Company comments 19. CFBAI (2009). Kellogg Company pledge. Available on the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketing to at www.bbb.org/us/storage/0/Shared%20Documents/ Children preliminary proposed nutrition principles to guide CBBBkelloggpledgerevisedFINAL.pdf industry self-regulatory efforts request for comment. Available at http://www.bbb.org/us/storage/0/Shared%20Documents/Kellogg- 20. CFBAI (March 2012). Summary of participants’ definitions of IWG-NUTRITION%20Comments.pdf advertising primarily directed to children under 12 and policies on not directing advertising to children under 6. Available 3. Lukovitz K (2010, December 10). Post lowers sugar in two at www.bbb.org/us/storage/16/documents/cfbai/CFBAI%20 pebbles varieties. Marketing Daily. Available at www.mediapost. Audience%20Definitions%20March%202012.pdf. com/publications/article/141955/post-lowers-sugar-in-two- pebbles-varieties.html 21. Kellogg (2012). Available at www.ricekrispies.com/en_US/ playground/playground.html#/en_US/playground/playground 4. General Mills (2009). 22. Apple Jacks “Race to the Bowl Rally.” Available at itunes.apple. 5. Harris JL, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD, et al. (2009). Cereal com/us/app/apple-jacks-race-to-bowl-rally/id421398910?mt=8 FACTS: Evaluating the nutrition quality and marketing of children’s cereals. Available at www.cerealfacts.org.

Cereal FACTS 39 Endnotes

23. Graham J (2012, Jan 31). General Mills spoons up digital fun 29. CFBAI (April 2012). Food and beverage products that meet on cereal boxes. USA Today. Available at www.usatoday.com/ participants’ approved nutrition standards that may be in child- tech/columnist/talkingtech/story/2012-01-31/general-mills- directed advertising. Available at www.bbb.org/us/storage/16/ tech/52906314/1 documents/cfbai/CFBAI%20Product%20List%20April%202012. pdf. 24. Troianovski A, Raice S (2012, June 3). Facebook explores giving kids access. Wall Street Journal. Available at online.wsj.com/ 30. Nielsen (2012). article/SB10001424052702303506404577444711741019238. html 31. CFBAI (March 2012). 25. World Health Organization (WHO) (2010). Set of 32. comScore MediaBuilderReport. recommendations on the marketing of food and non- 33. Kolish et al. (2011). alcoholic beverages to children. Available at www.who.int/ dietphysicalactivity/marketing-food-to-children/en/index.html 34. CBBB (2011). 26. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (2011, April 28). Interagency 35. Castetbon K, Harris JL, & Schwartz MB (2011). Purchases Working Group seeks input on proposed voluntary principles for of ready-to-eat cereals in the U.S. vary according to marketing food to children. Press release. Available at www.ftc. sociodemographic characteristics across nutritional content gov/opa/2011/04/foodmarket.shtm. and child-targeted marketing. Public Health Nutrition, FirstView article, 1-10. 27. Brownell KD, Schwartz M, Puhl R, Henderson K, Harris JL (2009). Bold action to prevent adolescent obesity. Journal of 36. Berr J (2011, March 7). Is Cap’n Crunch easing quietly into Adolescent Health, 45, S8-S17. retirement? Daily Finance. Available at www.dailyfinance. com/2011/03/07/capn-crunch-easing-into-retirement/ 28. Harris JL, Thompson J, Schwartz MB, & Brownell KD (2011). Nutrition-related claims on children’s cereals: What do they mean to parents and do they influence purchasing?Public Health Nutrition, 14(12), 2207-2212.

Cereal FACTS 40 Ranking Table 1 Brand Nutrition Ranking by overall nutritional quality (Nutrition Profile Index [NPI] score) in 2012 Includes nutrition information for child and family brands as of May 15, 2009 and May 1, 2012*

Average NPI score 2012 nutrition NPI Sugar # of score content Rank Company Brand varieties 2012 2009 range range (%) Best 1 Kellogg Mini-Wheats 11  73 71 54-82 0-22 2 Kashi Golden Goodness 1 72 - 72 13 3 General Mills Cheerios (regular) 1  70 58 70 4 4 Cascadian Farm Purely O’s 1  58 46 58 3 4 (tie) Quaker Life Crunchtime 2 58 - 58 19-22 6 Barbara’s Bakery Puffins 6  58 52 46-68 19-20 Puffins Puffs (formerly 7 Barbara’s Bakery Organic Wild Puffs) 2  56 58 54-58 23 Kashi Squares (formerly 8 Kashi Honey Sunshine) 2 55 56 54-56 20-23 9 General Mills Kix 3  54 51 52-56 10-21 9 (tie) Cascadian Farm Chocolate O’s 1 54 - 54 29 11 Annie’s Bunnies 5  53 50 50-64 7-28 12 Quaker Life 3 53 53 52-54 19-25 13 General Mills Dora the Explorer 1  52 50 52 22 13 (tie) Cascadian Farm Clifford Crunch 1  52 54 52 27 15 Nature’s Path Envirokidz Organic 5  51 52 44-54 23-40 16 Post Raisin Bran 1  50 48 50 32 16 (tie) Cascadian Farm Cinnamon Crunch 1 50 50 50 30 16 (tie) Cascadian Farm Honey Nut O’s 1  50 44 50 23 16 (tie) Cascadian Farm Fruitful O’s 1 50 - 50 29 16 (tie) Kellogg Corn Pops 1  50 33 50 31 Shredded Oats - 16 (tie) Barbara’s Bakery Cinnamon Crunch 1 50 50 50 27 22 General Mills Chex 7  49 45 44-56 7-33 Cheerios (except regular 23 General Mills and Honey Nut) 8  48 46 46-52 28-33 23 (tie) Kellogg Honey Smacks 1  48 46 48 56 25 General Mills Cookie Crisp 2  47 38 46-48 33-35 25 (tie) Kellogg Frosted Flakes 2  47 45 42-52 27-37 27 Kellogg Rice and Cocoa Krispies 5  47 41 38-64 3-40 28 Post Golden Crisp 1 46 46 46 52 28 (tie) General Mills Honey Nut Cheerios 1  46 44 46 32 continued

Cereal FACTS 41 Ranking Table 1

Brand Nutrition continued

Average NPI score 2012 nutrition NPI Sugar # of score content Rank Company Brand varieties 2012 2009 range range (%) 30 General Mills Cocoa Puffs 2  45 39 44-46 33-37 31 Post Alpha Bits 1  44 46 44 36 31 (tie) Post Waffle Crisp 1 44 44 44 40 31 (tie) Kellogg Apple Jacks 1  44 40 44 43 34 Kellogg Froot Loops 2  43 39 42-44 41-48 35 General Mills Golden Grahams 1  42 36 42 32 36 General Mills Lucky Charms 2  42 36 42 36-37 36 (tie) General Mills Trix 1  42 38 42 31 38 General Mills Cinnamon Toast Crunch 2  41 37 40-42 30-32 39 Kellogg Smorz 1  40 38 40 43 39 (tie) Post Honeycomb 1  40 48 40 31 41 General Mills Reese’s Puffs 1  38 34 38 34 42 Post Pebbles 4  33 40 26-50 30-37 Worst 43 Quaker Cap’n Crunch 5  31 38 28-38 33-47

Average NPI score 2012 nutrition NPI Sugar # of score content Rank Company varieties 2012 2009 range range (%) 1 Kashi 3  61 56 54-72 13-23 2 Kellogg 24  58 49 38-82 0-56 3 Barbara’s Bakery 9  56 54 46-68 19-27 4 Annie’s 5  53 51 50-64 7-28 5 Cascadian Farms 6  52 49 50-58 3-30 6 Nature’s Path 5 51 52 44-54 23-40 7 General Mills 35  48 44 38-70 4-37 8 Quaker 10 43 44 28-58 19-47 9 Post 9  39 44 26-50 30-52

*Excludes seasonal brands

Cereal FACTS 42 Ranking Table 2 Advertising Spending

Ranking by total advertising spending in 2011 Includes total spending in all measured media for child and family brands*

Total advertising 2011 advertising spending ($ million) spending ($ million) Rank Company Brand 2011 2008 TV Magazines Internet Most 1 General Mills Honey Nut Cheerios  73.7 60.7 71.3 0 2.4 2 Kellogg Mini-Wheats  53.9 43.3 43.1 7.6 1.7 3 General Mills Cheerios (regular)  49.9 50.6 48.2 0 1.2 4 Kellogg Frosted Flakes  40.6 18.4 40.1 0 .5 5 Kellogg Froot Loops  35.7 7.9 28.2 6.6 1.0 Cheerios (except 6 General Mills regular and Honey Nut)  34.8 23.9 30.4 3.2 1.1 7 General Mills Cinnamon Toast Crunch  29.0 15.7 25.8 0 3.1 8 Kellogg Rice and Cocoa Krispies  24.5 32.9 11.7 11.7 .9 9 General Mills Chex  19.0 9.3 17.5 1.3 < .1 10 Post Pebbles  13.6 7.4 6.7 5.2 .5 11 General Mills Lucky Charms  12.6 10.4 10.1 0 2.5 12 General Mills Reese’s Puffs  9.8 6.2 8.9 0 .9 13 General Mills Trix  7.9 6.8 7.5 0 .4 14 General Mills Cocoa Puffs  7.1 7.8 7.0 0 0 15 Kellogg Apple Jacks  4.9 6.2 2.2 2.2 .5 16 Kellogg Corn Pops  2.7 8.3 2.6 0 .2 17 General Mills Cookie Crisp  2.1 4.0 2.1 0 0 18 Barbara’s Bakery Puffins  .5 .3 .5 0 0 19 General Mills Kix  .1 0 0 0 0 20 Quaker Life  .1 12.0 0 0 0 21 Quaker Cap’n Crunch  .1 .2 0 0 0 Post Honeycomb  0 4.3 Least Nature’s Path Envirokidz Organic  0 .3

Total advertising 2011 advertising spending ($ million) spending ($ million) Rank Company 2011 2008 TV Magazines Internet 1 General Mills  246.0 195.3 228.8 4.5 11.6 2 Kellogg  162.3 116.3 127.8 28.1 4.8 3 Post  13.8 11.8 6.7 5.2 .5 4 Barbara’s Bakery  .5 .3 .5 0 0 5 Quaker  .2 12.1 0 0 0

*Includes spending in 18 different media including television, magazines, internet, radio, newspapers, free standing insert coupons and outdoor advertising Source: Nielsen

Cereal FACTS 43 Ranking Table 3 Television Advertising Exposure

Ranking by ads viewed by children (6-11 years) in 2011 Includes average number of advertisements viewed for child and family brands in 2008 and 2011

Average # of ads viewed Children Preschoolers Child:adult (6-11 years) (2-5 years) targeted ratio Rank Company Brand 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 Most 1 General Mills Cinnamon Toast Crunch  72 65 61 61 2.5 2 General Mills Honey Nut Cheerios  67 61  59 56 1.4 3 Kellogg Froot Loops  60 33  49 30 3.4 4 General Mills Reese’s Puffs  60 38  52 35 6.9 5 General Mills Lucky Charms  56 60  49 55 6.6 6 Post Pebbles  52 41  39 33 6.4 7 Kellogg Frosted Flakes  51 48  40 43 2.0 8 General Mills Trix  50 39  44 36 6.8 9 General Mills Cocoa Puffs  47 52  40 48 6.9 10 General Mills Cookie Crisp  21 25  18 22 6.6 11 General Mills Cheerios (regular)  18 9  15 7 0.5 12 Kellogg Mini-Wheats  14 10  12 9 0.4 13 Kellogg Corn Pops  12 36  9 32 5.1 Cheerios (except regular 14 General Mills and Honey Nut)  11 5  10 4 0.4 15 Kellogg Apple Jacks  9 27  8 24 6.1 16 General Mills Chex  9 1  8 0 0.4 17 Kellogg Rice and Cocoa Krispies  3 10  3 9 0.4 Quaker Life  0 4  0 3

Least Post Honeycomb  0 32  0 25

Average # of ads viewed Children Preschoolers Child:adult (6-11 years) (2-5 years) targeted ratio Rank Company 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 1 General Mills  411 354  356 325 2.1 2 Kellogg  149 165  120 148 1.6 3 Post  52 73  39 58 6.4

Source: Nielsen

Cereal FACTS 44 Ranking Table 4 Website Exposure

Ranking by average total visits by 2- to 11-year-olds in 2011 Includes data for visits to websites with child-targeted content

Average unique visitors per month (2-11 years) 2011 average*** 2011 2008 Visits Minutes Minutes Rank Company Website (000) (000) per month per visit per month Most 1 Kellogg FrootLoops.com  161.9 41.5 1.4 3.1 4.4 2 Kellogg AppleJacks.com  116.2 46.4 1.5 3.1 4.6 3 Kellogg CornPops.com  59.5 14.3 1.6 5.0 7.8 4 General Mills LuckyCharms.com  52.3 - 1.1 2.0 2.3 5 General Mills HoneyDefender.com  42.7 - 1.2 2.8 3.4 6 General Mills ReesesPuffs.com  29.3 6.4 1.1 4.0 4.6 7 Kellogg FrostedFlakes.com  28.5 - 1.2 1.9 2.3 8 Post PebblesPlay.com  25.1 - 1.1 3.5 4.0 9 General Mills TrixWorld.com  12.4 - 1.1 1.5 1.6 10 Kellogg RiceKrispies.com  5.3 12.4 1.1 2.4 2.7 11 General Mills HoneyNutCheerios.com  4.7 - 1.1 0.7 0.8 12 Post Postopia.com*  0.8 176.8 General Mills CookieCrisp.com  0.0 2.0 Least General Mills Millsberry.com*  - 403.0

Average unique visitors per month (2-11 years)** 2011 average*** 2011 Visits Minutes Minutes Rank Company Website (000) per month per visit per month 1 Kellogg 339.3 1.4 3.1 4.3 2 General Mills 118.6 1.1 2.1 2.3 3 Post 25.2 1.2 3 3.6

*These websites have been discontinued **Company-level data were not available for 2008 ***Averages are for 2- to 17-year-olds Source: comScore Media Metrix Key Measures Report

Cereal FACTS 45 Ranking Table 5 Banner Advertising Exposure

Ranking by average number of ad views on youth websites per month in 2011 Includes average monthly data for banner ads viewed for child and family brands from January– December 2011 and October 2008–March 2009

Average # of ad views* 2011 average Proportion of 2008- Unique Ads ads viewed 2011 2009 viewers viewed on youth Rank Company Brand (000) (000) (000) per viewer websites Most 1 General Mills Lucky Charms  35,295 22,400 6,246 7.2 71% 2 General Mills Cinnamon Toast Crunch  19,618 0 7,028 4.9 55% 3 Kellogg Froot Loops  17,658 6,998 3,439 4.7 83% 4 General Mills Reese’s Puffs  15,885 15,262 2,466 6.2 81% 5 General Mills Honey Nut Cheerios  12,660 4,440 8,309 4.3 29% 6 Kellogg Frosted Flakes  10,158 783 3,216 3.9 61% 7 Kellogg Apple Jacks  9,476 9,538 3,642 3.9 62% 8 General Mills Trix  8,905 10,531 1,705 6.0 75% 9 Kellogg Rice and Cocoa Krispies  4,843 2,079 6,276 4.0 15% 10 Post Pebbles  2,581 0 1,562 2.7 44% 11 General Mills Cheerios (except Honey Nut)  2,534 2,636 -- -- 3% 12 Kellogg Corn Pops  1,756 4,591 552 3.8 79% 13 Kellogg Mini-Wheats  1,549 290 -- -- 4% General Mills Chex  2 3 -- -- 0% Least 14

Average # of ad views* 2008- 2011 2009 Rank Company (000) (000) 1 General Mills  94,900 165,352** 2 Kellogg  45,441 24,280 3 Post  2,581 1,236***

*Average number of ad views on youth websites per month **Includes banner ads for Millsberry.com in 2008-2009 ***Includes banner ads for Postopia.com in 2008-2009 Source: comScore Ad Metrix Advertiser Report (January-December 2011)

Cereal FACTS 46 Ranking Table 6 Social Media Ranking by number of “likes” on Facebook Includes Facebook likes, Twitter followers, and YouTube views for child and family brands as of May 1, 2012 and Facebook posts and tweets in April 2012.

Facebook Twitter YouTube Monthly # of Monthly Rank Company Brand # of likes posts followers tweets # of views Most 1 General Mills Cheerios (all) 741,331 13 5,136 1,429 17,496 2 Kellogg Frosted Flakes 299,593 15 3 Kellogg Mini-Wheats 144,934 18 4 Quaker Cap’n Crunch 59,232 33 4,398 497 5 Kellogg Rice Krispies 24,150 15 6 General Mills Golden Grahams 20,306 0 277,369 7 Quaker Life 2,109 0 Least 8 Nature’s Path Envirokidz Organic 950 2 14,137

Cereal FACTS 47 Ranking Table 7 Spanish-language TV Ranking by Spanish-language advertising spending in 2011 Includes total spending for child, family, and adult brands and average number of TV ads viewed by Hispanic preschoolers and children

Average # of TV ads viewed Advertising Hispanic Hispanic spending preschoolers children ($ million) (2-5 years) (6-11 years) Rank Company Brand 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 Most 1 General Mills Honey Nut Cheerios  $12.4 $11.1  17 15  13 9 2 Post  $9.3 $5.7  20 10  14 6 3 General Mills Cinnamon Toast Crunch  $7.4 $0.0  9 0  7 0 4 Kellogg Frosted Flakes  $6.3 $3.8  8 7  5 4 5 Kellogg  $6.3 $0.0  6 0  5 0 6 General Mills Cheerios (regular)  $6.1 $1.5  10 4  7 3 7 General Mills Fiber One  $5.6 $0.0  8 0  6 0 8 Kellogg Froot Loops  $4.2 $0.0  5 0  3 0 9 Kellogg  $4.0 $0.0  4 0  3 0 10 Kellogg Mini-Wheats  $2.7 $0.0  3 0  2 0 Least 11 Kellogg  $3.5 $0.0  0 0  0 0

Average # of TV ads viewed Advertising Hispanic Hispanic spending preschoolers children ($ million) (2-5 years) (6-11 years) Rank Company 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 1 General Mills  $32.4 $14.6  44 22  33 14 2 Kellogg  $23.4 $5.1  25 9  18 5 3 Post  $9.3 $5.7  20 10  14 6

Source: Nielsen

Cereal FACTS 48 Appendix A

Methods product reformulations, website redesigns, new advertising campaigns, or other marketing programs introduced after We utilized a variety of data sources and methods to provide May 1, 2012. a comprehensive analysis of the ready-to-eat cereal market in the United States. Through publicly available data, we To simplify data analysis, we utilized several criteria to thoroughly document and evaluate common marketing categorize cereals. We first assigned a company and brand practices used to promote the majority of widely-available designation to each cereal: cereal products, including TV advertising, company ■ Company refers to the company that is listed on the websites, internet advertising on third-party websites, and package (e.g., General Mills or Kellogg). In most cases, social media. the company listed on the package is the same as the Methods include analyzing the nutrition quality of cereal cereal brand’s parent company, with a few exceptions. In products and purchasing media exposure and spending 2008, Ralcorp acquired Post Cereals from Kraft Foods; data from syndicated sources (i.e., Nielsen and comScore). these cereals are listed under the Post company. In We augment these analyses with information searches on addition, Quaker cereals is a division of PepsiCo, Kellogg company websites, monitoring the business and consumer Company owns Kashi, and General Mills owns Cascadian press, and numerous visits to the supermarket. These Farm. Packaging for these cereals includes few or no methods are described in detail in the following sections. mentions of the parent company; therefore, we categorize them as separate companies. We did not have access to food industry proprietary documents, including privately-commissioned market ■ Brand references the marketing unit for each cereal. research, media or marketing plans, or other strategic For most cereals, the brand is clear from the name of documents; therefore, we do not attempt to interpret the the cereal (e.g., Berry Berry Kix, Honey Kix, and Kix are cereal companies’ goals or objectives for their marketing all different versions of the Kix brand). In some cases, practices. Rather, we provide comprehensive and transparent however, marketing practices differed significantly documentation of a) the nutrition quality of cereal products; b) between products with the same brand name. In those the extent of children’s and adolescents’ exposure to cereal instances, marketing practices determine the brand marketing, in numerous forms; and c) changes in nutrition and designation. For example, Honey Nut Cheerios markets marketing that occurred from 2008 to 2012. We also evaluate extensively to children directly, but other types of Cheerios the products and marketing practices targeted to young are marketed exclusively to adults. Therefore, we people as compared to those targeted to adults and compare designate Honey Nut Cheerios as a separate brand. Due the products and marketing practices of different cereal to the high volume of marketing for regular Cheerios, we companies and brands. also list regular Cheerios and Cheerios (except regular and Honey Nut) as separate brands. In other instances, the names of the cereals differ somewhat, but they are Scope of the analysis marketed under the same campaign (e.g., Rice Krispies To obtain a full list of ready-to-eat (RTE) cereal products to and Cocoa Krispies). In those cases, we assigned the include in our analysis, we first compiled a list of all products cereals to one brand (i.e., Rice and Cocoa Krispies). stocked in the cereal and natural food aisles of a large, local ■ Cereal identifies the specific variety of the cereal. In cases supermarket, as well as products listed on websites for the where one variety of the cereal has the same name as the large cereal companies and a list of cereals obtained from brand (e.g., the Lucky Charms brand includes both Lucky Nielsen (Industry Classification Code = F122). We then Charms and Lucky Charms Chocolate), we identify the excluded any hot cereals (e.g., oatmeal or Cream of ), cereal as Lucky Charms (regular) and the brand as Lucky any products targeted to small specialized segments of the Charms. population (e.g., baby cereals or diabetic products), and any cereal branded products that are not traditional RTE cereals We also categorized the brands as either child, family or (e.g., Kellogg cereal straws or any type of cereal bar). We also adult brands according to the marketing practices we excluded generic cereals, such as store brands, and foreign documented: cereals, such as Dorset and Nestle, from the analysis. ■ Child brands include any brands for which we found The data reflect cereal product formulations as of May 1, marketing that spoke directly to children. To determine 2012 and the marketing practices used to promote cereals this classification, we first examined the brand’s TV from January 1, 2008 through May 1, 2012. Specific time advertising. If children were exposed to significantly more frames examined for each type of data are described in advertisements for the brand than were adults and/or the the following sections. Cereal products and marketing advertising message appealed specifically to children, the practices continue to evolve; therefore, the information brand was designated as a child-targeted brand. If the presented in this report does not include new products or brand did not advertise on TV during our analysis period, we examined the product website to determine whether

Cereal FACTS 49 Appendix A

it was designed only for children to access on their own after June 1, 2009. The following describes each of these (i.e., not together with their parents). Finally, any products methods and criteria in more detail. that included a popular children’s licensed character or celebrity in the name of the cereal are designated as child- targeted (e.g., Clifford Crunch). NPI score The NPI score is adapted from the Nutrient Profiling model ■ Family brands include any brands for which we found (NP) currently used by the U.K. Office of Communications any marketing mention that indicated the brand was (OFCOM) to identify nutritious foods that are appropriate appropriate to serve to children, excluding those identified to advertise to children on TV.2 The model has also been as child brands. Wording on the company website or approved by Food Standards Australia New Zealand to child features on the packaging (e.g., games and puzzles identify products that are permitted to utilize health claims in or cartoon characters) provided evidence that child their marketing.3 The NP model provides one overall nutrition consumption was suggested. We also designate products score for a product based on total calories and proportion as family brands if we did not find evidence of child- of both healthy and unhealthy nutrients and specific food targeted marketing after January 1, 2011, even if they had groups or items, including saturated fat, sugar, fiber, protein, been advertised directly to children in the past (e.g., Count sodium, and unprocessed fruit, nut, and vegetable content. Chocula or Cap'n Crunch cereals). The NP model has several advantages over other nutrient ■ Adult brands include all other brands. These products profiling systems. The model was developed by nutrition contained no mention in any of their marketing materials researchers at the University of Oxford independent of food to indicate that children should or would want to consume industry funding, its development and scoring method are these cereals. publicly documented and transparent, and it has been The purpose of this report is to document the products and validated to reflect the judgment of professional nutritionists.4 marketing practices used to promote cereals for child and It also produces a continuous score that provides a relative adolescent consumption since 2008. Therefore, although evaluation of products, in contrast to threshold models that we collected data for all child, family, and adult cereals, the simply classify foods as “good” or “bad.” In addition, the analyses focus on nutrition and marketing practices of child model includes only nutrients that are reasonable and well- and family brands. justified based on existing nutrition science. In particular, the model does not award points for micronutrient fortification thereby discouraging companies from adding vitamins Nutrition quality and minerals to inherently unhealthy products. Appendix B provides a detailed description of the model design, scoring The nutrition and ingredient information from each cereal’s method, and benefits. nutrition facts label provided the data to evaluate the nutrition quality of cereals on our list. We obtained nutrition facts data The interpretation of the original scores produced by the NP from company websites, product packaging, and phone model are not intuitively obvious because the original model calls to cereal company customer service lines. All nutrient is reverse scored (i.e., a higher score indicates a product information reflects product formulations as of May 1, 2012. of worse nutritional quality) and range from +34 to –15. In Our decision to conduct the analysis using more recent addition, a score of 3 points or lower identifies healthy foods nutrition data provides the most up-to-date evaluation of that are allowed to be advertised to children in the United cereal nutrition quality. These data do not, however, reflect Kingdom. For the purpose of these analyses, we created cereal reformulations that occurred after May 1, 2012. an NPI score using the following formula: NPI score = (-2) * NP score + 70. This recalculation produces a score from 0 We used a number of methods to evaluate cereal nutrition (poorest nutritional quality) to 100 (highest nutritional quality) quality. Our primary evaluation tool, the Nutrition Profiling that is easier to interpret and compare. Index (NPI) score, is based on the nutrition rating system established by Rayner and colleagues for the Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom.1 In addition, we examined the Additional nutrient quality sugar, fiber, saturated fat, and sodium content separately to measures highlight differences between individual nutrients within the NPI score; identified whether the products contain artificial To provide more detailed information about specific healthy sweeteners; and evaluated the cereals according to other and unhealthy nutrients in each cereal, we also calculated established criteria for nutrition quality. Finally, we evaluated the proportion of cereal content from sugar, fiber, and fat (i.e., cereal companies’ commitment to improving product nutrition g of the nutrient divided by g per serving) and milligrams by examining changes in the nutrition quality of individual of sodium per 100 grams of cereal. These standardized cereals that occurred after 2006, as well as the nutrition quality measures allow comparisons between products of differing of new brands and new varieties of existing brands introduced serving sizes. In addition to these nutrients, we examined product ingredient lists on the nutrition facts labels to

Cereal FACTS 50 Appendix A determine whether the cereals contain artificial sweeteners when the serving is 30 grams or less (i.e., 13 g per 50 g (aspartame, acesulfame potassium, saccharin, or sucralose). of cereal). Although these ingredients are allowed by the Food and ■ Sodium: No more than 210 milligrams of sodium per RACC Drug Administration (FDA), some parents may not wish for individual foods (or per 50 g for foods with low RACCs). to feed their children food products which contain these ■ Trans fat: Zero grams per RACC for individual foods. ingredients. The guidelines also require a specific proportion of whole In addition, we evaluated the cereals according to other grain. Due to difficulties in assessing exact whole grain established nutrition criteria, including Women, Infants, and content of cereals, we excluded this criteria in the analysis. Children (WIC) guidelines, U.K. guidelines for advertising to children, and products approved by companies participating in the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative Changes in nutrition quality (CFBAI). Finally, we evaluated cereal companies’ commitment to improving the nutrition quality of their products with two ■ WIC guidelines. The Food and Nutrition Service of the measures: reformulations of pre-existing cereals and nutrition U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) offers grants quality of new brands and new varieties of existing brands. to states to provide supplemental foods to low-income pregnant and breastfeeding women, infants, and children ■ Cereal reformulations. This measure quantifies changes younger than 5 years.5 Each state establishes its own in nutrition quality for existing cereals. For this analysis, we list of products that can be included in their WIC food included the original 108 General Mills, Kellogg, Post, and package; however, the USDA has determined that all Quaker cereals for which nutrition content was analyzed cereals included in the package “must contain ≤ 21.2 g in 2006.8 Data from the previous Cereal FACTS report (for sucrose and other sugars per 100 g dry cereal (≤ 6 g per 2006 and 2009) and nutrition information collected in 2012 dry oz).” This measure indicates whether the cereals in our were used to measure changes in nutritional quality over analysis meet this sugar cut-off and would be eligible to time. Increases in NPI score and percentage of fiber, and include in states’ WIC package. decreases in sugar and sodium content, were considered positive changes. ■ U.K. guidelines for advertising to children. We also identified cereals included in our analysis that could be ■ New cereal introductions. We used Datamonitor’s Product advertised to children on TV in the United Kingdom.6 Launch Analytics database to identify new cereal products OFCOM only allows food products with an NP score of introduced in the United States from January 2009 to April 3 or lower to be advertised on children’s TV programs or 2012.9 We also searched for product introductions under during programs with a disproportionate number of children each brand name for all the cereals on our master list. We younger than 16 years old. This score translates to an NPI then calculated average NPI scores for new cereal brands score greater than 62 according to our revised model. and new varieties of existing brands.

■ CFBAI-approved products. We indicate cereals that CFBAI participants have identified as foods that meet their Marketing practices nutrition standards and can be included in advertising primarily directed to children younger than 12 years old in In this analysis, we focused our data collection on TV the United States.7 Only products offered by participating advertising and internet marketing (including company- companies (i.e., General Mills, Kellogg, and Post) were owned websites, advertising on third-party websites, and evaluated under this criterion. social media).

■ Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Food Marketed to Children guidelines. The Federal Trade Commission Traditional media (FTC), FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the USDA, were commissioned To measure cereal company advertising practices in by Congress in 2009 to develop recommendations traditional measured media we licensed data from for the nutritional quality of food marketed to children Nielsen for advertising spending in all measured media and adolescents. These recommendations represent and exposure to TV advertising by age group, race, and consensus among the experts in these federal agencies ethnicity. These data provide a complete picture of cereal about appropriate standards. The IWG recommendations company advertising spending and TV advertising from specify limiting four nutrients: January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2011. Under certain ■ Saturated fat: 1 gram per reference amount customarily circumstances, the Nielsen database is updated to reflect consumed (RACC). the most current figures. As a result, the 2008 advertising ■ Added sugars: Maximum of 13 grams of added sugars spending and TV advertising exposure numbers may differ per RACC for individual foods or no more than 8 grams slightly from those reported in the first Cereal FACTS report.

Cereal FACTS 51 Appendix A

Advertising spending Nielsen calculates GRPs as the sum total of all advertising exposures for all individuals within a demographic group, Nielsen tracks total media spending in 18 different media including multiple exposures for individuals (i.e., gross including TV, internet, radio, magazines, newspaper, free impressions), divided by the size of the population, and standing insert coupons, and outdoor advertising. We multiplied by 100. GRPs are difficult to interpret. Therefore, licensed these data for all products in our list of RTE cereals we also use GRP data to calculate the following TV for the four-year period. These data provide a measure of all advertising measures: advertising spending. Average advertising exposure. This measure is calculated by dividing total GRPs for a demographic group during TV advertisimg exposure a specific time period by 100. It provides a measure of To measure exposure to cereal advertising, we licensed ads viewed by individuals in that demographic group, on gross rating points (GRP) data from Nielsen for the same average, during the time period measured. For example, period and products. GRPs measure the total audience if Nielsen reports 2000 GRPs for 2- to 11-year-olds for a delivered by a product’s media schedule. It is expressed specific product in 2008, we can conclude that the average as a percentage of the population that is exposed to each 2- to 11-year-old viewed 200 ads for that product in 2008. commercial over a specified period of time across all types Targeted GRP ratios. As GRPs provide a per capita of TV programming. It is the advertising industry’s standard measure of advertising exposure for specific demographic measure to assess audience exposure to advertising groups, we also used GRPs to measure relative exposure campaigns; and Nielsen is the most widely used source for to advertising between demographic groups. We report the 10 these data. GRPs, therefore, provide an objective outside following targeted GRP ratios: assessment of advertising exposure. In addition, GRPs can be used to measure advertisements delivered to a specific ■ Child to adult targeted ratio = GRPs for 2-11 years/GRPs audience, that is specific age and other demographic for 18-49 years. groups (also known as target rating points or TRPs), and ■ Black to white child ratio = GRPs for blacks 2-11 years/ provide a “per capita” measure to examine relative exposure GRPs for whites 2-11 years. This measure uses only among groups. For example, if a cereal product had 2000 national GRPs. GRPs in 2008 for 2- to 11-year-olds and 1000 GRPs for 18- to 49-year-olds, then we can conclude that children saw twice ■ Black to white adolescent ratio = GRPs for blacks 12-17 as many ads for that brand in 2008 as compared to adults. years/GRPs for whites 12-17 years. This measure uses only national GRPs. The GRP measure differs from the measure used to evaluate food industry compliance with their CFBAI pledges. As A targeted ratio greater than 1.0 indicates that the average discussed, the pledges apply only to advertising in children’s person in the group of interest (i.e., the child in the child to television programming as defined by audience composition adult ratio) viewed more advertisements than the average (i.e., programs in which 25 to 35% of the audience are person in the comparison group (i.e., the adult), while a younger than 12); approximately one-half of all advertisements targeted ratio less than 1.0 indicates that they viewed fewer viewed by children younger than 12 occur during children’s ads. For example, a child to adult targeted ratio of 2.0 indicates programming.15 In contrast, GRPs measure children’s total that children viewed twice as many ads as adults viewed. If exposure to advertising during all types of TV programming. this ratio is greater than the relative difference in the amount of Therefore, evaluating GRPs will determine whether TV viewed by each group, we can conclude that the advertiser participating companies reduced TV advertising to this age has designed a media plan to reach this specific demographic group, or simply shift advertising from children’s TV to other group more often than would naturally occur. types of programming viewed by large numbers of children. In the TV advertising analyses, we first identified GRPs for Internet marketing the following demographic groups: 2-5 years, 6-11 years, 12- We examined three types of youth-targeted marketing on 17 years, and 18-49 years. These data combine exposure to the internet: cereal company-sponsored websites, banner national (i.e., network, cable, and syndicated) and local (i.e., advertising on other (i.e., third-party) websites, and social spot) TV. In addition, we identified GRPs for black youth (2- media marketing. 11 and 12-17 years) for national TV. Nielsen does not provide spot market GRPs for blacks at the individual level; however, only 2.1% of cereal advertising occurred in spot market TV Company-sponsored websites during the period examined.11 Therefore, these data reflect We began with a list of branded websites that were included virtually all black youth exposure to TV cereal advertising. To in the previous Cereal FACTS report and added branded assess exposure by Hispanic youth, we provide GRP data sites that existed between January 2011 and December for advertising that occurred on Spanish-language TV.

Cereal FACTS 52 Appendix A

2011. For the purposes of this study, a website is defined For each website in our analysis, we report the following as all pages containing the same stem URL. For example, website exposure measures: CornPops.com is the website of interest, and CornPops. ■ Average unique visitors per month for 2- to 11-year-olds, com/_____ are secondary pages contained within the site. 12- to 17-year-olds, Hispanic 6- to 17-year-olds, and black We then eliminated all branded sites without any pages 6-to 17-year-olds. This measure was calculated by adding designed for young people to access directly. A website total unique visitors reported each quarter from January was determined not to be youth-oriented if it predominantly through December 2011 for each demographic group had instructions for parents, contained only recipes, had no divided by four (for four quarters). games or Flash animation, was generally text-oriented, or a ■ Average visits per month14 and average minutes combination of the above. For example, CapnCrunch.com, per visit for each unique visitor. Quarterly numbers, though colorful, was determined not to be a child-targeted as reported by comScore, were averaged for each website because it contained messages addressed to website. comScore only reports these data for the larger adults (e.g., "When you were a kid," had product information demographic groups. If separate data were not available and games geared toward adults, no Flash animation, and for the specific demographic group in a given quarter, contained stories about parents spending time with their we used the information for the next largest demographic kids). Websites that included child-targeted pages within a group. For example, if data were not available for 2- to primarily adult website were also included in this analysis. 11-year-olds specifically, we report the data for 2- to We obtained data on exposure to these websites from the 17-year-olds or, in a few cases, visitors 2 years and older. comScore Media Metrix Key Measures Report.12 comScore ■ Targeted visitor ratios were calculated for children versus maintains the largest existing audience measurement panel adults, teens versus adults, Hispanics versus non-Hispanics, and captures the internet behavior of a representative panel of and black versus all youth. To determine these ratios, we approximately 250,000 to 300,000 monthly users in the United first calculated percent of internet visitors exposed to States.13 It collects data at both the household and individual the website for each demographic group (2-11 years, level using Session Assignment Technology and biometrics, 12-17 years, 6-17 years, 18-49 years, Hispanics 6-17 which can identify computer users without requiring them years, non-Hispanics 6-17 years, and black 6-17 years) for to log in. As a result, we were able to examine website each quarter. This number was calculated by dividing the exposure for both children and adults in the same household. number of unique visitors to the website in a given quarter Companies participating with comScore also have beacons (for the specific demographic group) by the number of (i.e., tag-based data) placed on their web content and unique visitors to the total internet for the same quarter and advertisements, which allowed us to identify the ads individual demographic group. The percent of unique visitors was then users were exposed to, and the specific websites where the multiplied by the average number of visits to the website exposures occurred. comScore uses these panel data to in that quarter for the demographic group to provide an extrapolate their findings to the total population. Their Media average number of visits to the website for all internet users Metrix database provides internet exposure data by month in that group. This measure takes into account both the for any websites visited by at least 30 of their panel members reach of the website to the population of interest and the in a given month—when available, comScore also provides frequency the specific population visited the website in a an estimate of total unique visitors in the United States, given quarter. This per capita measure of exposure was then visits per month, minutes spent on the website per visit, and used to calculate the targeted visitor ratios. pages viewed. In addition, Media Metrix provides exposure information by visitor age, race, and ethnicity for sites that Child to adult and teen to adult visitor ratios were meet the 30 panelist minimum by demographic group. calculated by summing the quarterly average number of visits for children or teens and dividing this number by the We first searched the comScore Media Metrix database to sum of the average number of visits for adults. identify the youth-targeted cereal websites for which exposure data were available from January through December 2011. Black to all youth ratio was calculated by summing the quarterly average number of visits for black 6- to 17-year- For each quarter during this period, we collected the olds and dividing this number by the sum of the average following data for available cereal websites: total unique number of visits for all youth 6-17 years. visitors, total visits, average minutes per visit, and average visits per unique visitor. In addition, when the website traffic was high enough in a given quarter, we also collected these Calculating website GRP equivalents measures separately for children ages 2-11 years, 12-17 To compare exposure to advertising on TV with exposure years, 2-17 years, Hispanic youth 6-17 years, and black to internet advertising, we calculated GRP equivalents youth 6-17 years. We also collected data for adults 18-49 for young people’s exposure to company websites. We years and total unique visitors to the internet overall for each defined website GRP equivalents as the percent of young age and demographic group as comparison groups.

Cereal FACTS 53 Appendix A people exposed, and multiplied by the number of times they were exposed to these advertisements; therefore, we cannot were exposed multiplied by 100. To provide a comparable differentiate between exposure by any specific age group time period to the TV exposure data, we calculated GRP (including children or adolescents). equivalents for 12 months. comScore’s Cereal and Breakfast Product Dictionary was We used the following measures from comScore Media used to determine the advertisements of interest. For each Metrix Key Measures Report: month, comScore reported data for any cereal product in the dictionary with at least 10 raw ad views on the total internet ■ Total unique visitors to the website for each quarter (u_c) or on a specific publisher site. Measures available from ■ Average visits per visitor for each quarter (v) comScore for each month include display ad impressions (i.e., the number of advertisements fully downloaded and ■ Average minutes per visit to the website for each quarter viewed on publisher websites), advertising exposed unique (m) visitors (i.e., the number of different individuals exposed ■ Total unique visitors to the internet for each quarter (u_i) to advertisements on a publisher website), and average frequency of ad views by cereal advertiser. This information We first divided the total unique visitors to the website is available for the total internet and for individual publisher for each quarter by total unique visitors to the internet for websites. the same quarter. We then multiplied this quotient by the average visits per visitor to the website in the same quarter As we could not separate ads viewed by young people and multiplied the resulting number by 3 first (to account from those viewed by adults, we identified the websites on for 3 months in a quarter) and then by 100. This number which the advertising appeared that were disproportionately provides the reach X visits for one quarter (RV). targeted to youth (i.e., youth websites). We defined a youth website as a website that met one of two conditions: 1) it was RV = u_c*v*3*100 / u_i identified by comScore as an entertainment website for youth We then combined all available RV totals to obtain an annual 2-17 years during the period examined, or 2) the proportion of total (TRV). visitors 2-17 years to the website exceeded the total percent of 2- to 17-year-old visitors to the internet in the given month. TRV = sum (RV) comScore provides web domains both at the conglomerate We then converted the average minutes per visit to the level (e.g., Disney Online websites) and at a more granular website to :30-second TV ad equivalents (TAE). For example, level (i.e., individual websites and parts of sites). We if the average visit to the website lasted 10 minutes, those obtained granular web domain data to create the 2011 list of 10 minutes spent on the website were equivalent to 20 :30 youth websites; however, the 2008 to 2009 list was created second TV ads. We then multiplied TRV by TV Ad Equivalents using conglomerate-level data. Conglomerate web domains to create the final 12-month Website GRP Equivalent. are less likely to meet our definition for youth websites as TAE = m*2 they consist of multiple sites targeted to different audiences. As a result, the 2008 to 2009 data reported for ads viewed Website GRP equivalent = TRV*TAE on youth websites slightly under-represents the true number of ads viewed on these sites. Banner advertising on third-party websites From the comScore data, we calculated the following Data for exposure to cereal brand advertising on third-party measures for each cereal brand for which banner advertising websites (i.e., websites sponsored by other companies) was found: were extracted from the comScore Ad Metrix Advertiser ■ Unique viewers per month16 was calculated by adding Report.15 comScore Ad Metrix monitors the same panel of a brand's advertising exposed unique visitors reported users as comScore Media Metrix, but additionally tracks monthly from January through December 2011 and any advertisements that are fully loaded onto a user’s web dividing by 12 (for 12 months). browser. Ad Metrix, therefore, measures individual exposure to banner ads presented in rich media (SWF files) and ■ Ads viewed per viewer per month was calculated by traditional image based ads (JPEG and GIF files). It does not taking an average of the average frequency of ad views capture text, video, or html-based ads. Ad Metrix also ties by viewer for the cereal brand each month from January the advertisement to the unique user viewing it, the third- through December 2011. party website where the advertisement was viewed, and the ■ Proportion of ads viewed on youth websites was company sponsoring the advertisement. calculated by dividing the brand’s display ad impressions Third-party website data were collected for January through that were viewed on youth-targeted websites by its display December 2011. During this time period, Ad Metrix did not ad impressions that were viewed on all websites during report demographic information about the individuals who January through December 2011.

Cereal FACTS 54 Appendix A

■ Average number of ad views on youth websites per were also added as search terms on Twitter directly when there month was calculated by adding a brand’s display ad was no account located through Google. Twitter accounts impressions on youth websites reported monthly from were considered to be sponsored by the cereal company if January through December 2011 and dividing by 12 (for the account provided a link to the brand’s main website or the 12 months). brand website provided a link to that Twitter account. Once the Twitter account was verified, the number of followers was noted Calculating banner advertising GRP from the main page as of May 1, 2012. The number of postings e quivalents between April 1 and April 30 was then manually counted. YouTube. YouTube presence was identified by a YouTube To calculate banner advertising GRP equivalents we used Channel linked directly from a brand’s main website. The the following measures from comScore Ad Metrix Advertiser number of subscribers and viewings was noted from the Report and Media Metrix Key Measures Report: main YouTube page. ■ Total number of ad views on youth websites for each month (ad_yw) References ■ Average number of unique visitors to the internet (avg_u_i) 1. Food Standards Agency (2007). Nutrient profiling. www.food.gov. We first calculated the total number of ad views for each uk/healthiereating/advertisingtochildren/nutlab/ brand that appeared on youth websites each month (MAV) 2. OFCOM (2007). Television advertising of food and drink and added them together to create a 12-month total (TAV). products to children. Final statement. www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/ condocs/foodads_new/statement/statement.pdf TAV = sum (MAV) 3. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2008). We then divided TAV by the average number of unique www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodmatters/ healthnutritionandrelatedclaims/ visitors to the internet (2-11 years and 12-17 years), for the 12-month time period and multiplied the quotient by 100 for 4. Scarborough, P., Rayner, M., Stockley, L., & Black, A. (2007). Nutrition professionals’ perception of the “healthiness” of the third-party advertising GRP equivalent. individual foods. Public Health Nutrition, 10, 346-353. Third-party advertising GRP equivalent = TAV / avg_u_i 5. Food and Nutrition Service, USDA (2007). WIC food packages. www.fns.usda.gov/wic/benefitsandservices/foodpkg.htm Social media marketing 6. OFCOM (2007) 7. CBBB (2009). BBB Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising To track social media activity among cereal brands, Initiative: Food and beverage products that meet participants’ Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube presence was measured. approved nutrition standards. www.bbb.org/us/storage/0/ Shared%20Documents/Aug_Product_List_final1.pdf When available, social media presence was determined for individual brands. Otherwise, social media was determined 8. Schwartz, M. B., Vartanian, L. R., Wharton, C. M., & Brownell, K. D. (2008). Examining the nutritional quality of breakfast at the company level. cereals marketed to children. Journal of the American Dietetic Assocication, 108, 702-5. Facebook. All cereal brands were entered as search terms on Facebook. Brand Facebook pages were considered 9. Datamonitor (2012). www.productscan.com/ to be sponsored by the cereal company if the Facebook 10. Nielsen (2012). Nielsen Monitor AdViews. page provided a link to the brand’s main website or if www.nielsenmedia.com the brand website provided a link to the Facebook page. 11. Nielsen (2012) Additional cereal brand pages were included if they had 12. comScore (2012). Media Metrix Suite. www.comscore.com/ more than 20,000 “likes.” The number of likes and the main Products_Services/Product_Index/Media_Metrix_Suite demographic of likes was collected by clicking on the “likes” 13. comScore (2009). U.S. Client Newsletter. www.comscore.com/ option on the main page. These numbers were assessed on Newsletter/2009/August/US_Client_Newsletter May 1, 2012. The number of postings for the month of April 14. The data used for average visits per month is comScore Media was determined by first selecting the wall option “Posts by Metrix Key Measures Report’s data for the measure: Average Page” which ensured that only posts initiated by the cereal Visits per Visitor. company were displayed. The number of posts dated 15. comScore (2012). www.comscore.com/Products_Services/ between April 1 and April 30 were then manually counted. Product_Index/Ad_Metrix 16. The data used for Unique viewers per month is comScore Ad Twitter. To assess Twitter presence, cereals were entered as Metrix Advertiser Report’s data for the measure: Advertising search terms on Google with the added term “Twitter.” Cereals Exposed Unique Visitors.

Cereal FACTS 55 Appendix B

The UK Ofcom Nutrient Profiling (NP) Model Defining ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’ foods and drinks for TV advertising to children Mike Rayner, Peter Scarborough, British Heart Foundation Health Promotion Research Group, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford Tim Lobstein, International Obesity Task Force, London

Consumer groups and public health organisations have An extension of these principles is to combine several called for bans on the advertising of ‘unhealthy’ food to different nutrients into a single score which can be used to children for several decades. The definition of ‘unhealthy’ show that a product is nutritionally better than another, similar has been a topic of considerable argument. Food companies one. For example, a manufacturer or retailer may promote have resisted having any products described as ‘unhealthy’ a ‘healthy eating’ range, or a government or public health but have gradually developed a number of different schemes body may endorse a labelling scheme to identify ‘better for which define products they believe are ‘healthy’ (or at least you’ products. Several schemes to identify healthier options ‘healthier’) and appropriate for advertising to children. Health within classes of foods are already available, such as the and consumer groups have called for a single scheme - US manufacturers’ Smart Choices programme (http://www. or ‘nutrient profiling model’ - consistent with international smartchoicesprogram.com/nutrition.html) and the Swedish recommendations for preventing chronic disease and with Keyhole labelling scheme (http://www.slv.se/upload/nfa/ national food-based dietary guidelines. A simple system documents/food_regulations/Keyhole_2005_9.pdf). which could be applied to all products and with a clearly In 2007 a review of nutrient profiling models commissioned defined cut-off for defining which foods are not suitable for by the UK Food Standards Agency identified over 40 advertising to children would be ideal. different schemes (http://www.food.gov.uk/healthiereating/ advertisingtochildren/nutlab/nutprofilereview/ What sort of nutrient profiling model? nutprofilelitupdatedec07). More schemes have been developed since then. They vary considerably in the There are a number of technical questions which need to be nutrients they consider (ranging from just a few to over 20) considered: and whether they use different criteria according to the type of food being profiled or whether all foods are assessed ■ Which nutrients should be included? using the same criteria. The Smart Choices scheme has ■ Should the profiling criteria differ according to the type of different criteria for 19 different food categories, the Keyhole food being profiled, or should all foods be assessed using scheme has 26 food categories, and one scheme – used the same criteria? for the Australian Heart Foundation Tick Program (http:// www.heartfoundation.org.au/sites/tick/Pages/default.aspx) ■ What is the reference amount: for example, should foods has different criteria for more than 70 food categories. The be compared per 100g, per 100 kcal or per portion or schemes also vary in the reference amounts they are based serving? upon, and in the measurement criteria they use to score the ■ Should the final result be presented as a single figure different aspects of nutritional quality. or as a set of figures relating to different aspects of the For the purposes of defining foods suitable for advertising to nutritional quality of the food? children, the nutrient profiling model needs to be relatively The answers to these questions depend on the purpose of simple to understand and to apply. An ideal model uses the nutrient profiling model. If the requirement is simply to easily-available information, it should take into account define the presence of ‘high’ or ‘low’ levels of nutrients, then ‘positive’ elements (e.g. micronutrients, fruit, vegetables the methodological questions are fairly easily answered, and dietary fibre) and ‘negative’ elements (e.g. saturated and indeed nutrient profiling in this sense has been widely fats, salt/sodium and added sugars) and it should provide accepted for national and international legislation. Codex a single answer which lies on a single scale that runs from Alimentarius and various other bodies have defined ‘healthy’ to ‘unhealthy’. threshold values for making ‘high’ and ‘low’ claims for nutrients in food products, per unit of food, and include specific requirements for presenting information on which a The UK model nutrient-related claim is made. A similar approach is used for The UK regulator for broadcast media is the Office of claims which make comparisons such as a ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ Communications, usually called Ofcom, and in anticipation level of a nutrient relative to similar foods. of new regulations to control advertising to children, it requested advice on how to profile the nutrients in foods in

Cereal FACTS 56 Appendix B order to judge their suitability for advertising to children. In Early prototypes of the model gave a score for added response, the UK Food Standards Agency commissioned the sugars (technically non-milk extrinsic sugars), but this was British Heart Foundation Health Promotion Research Group later replaced with a score for total sugar, a move which at Oxford University to carry out a research programme received substantial support from food manufacturers who to develop a nutrient profiling model. The development of said they faced technical difficulties in analysing added the model has been well-documented elsewhere (http:// sugars and that information on total sugars is a requirement www.food.gov.uk/foodlabelling/researchandreports/ of UK (based on European) food labelling legislation. The nutrientprofiles). The model was formally passed to Ofcom contribution of foods high in natural sugars to a balanced at the end of 2005 and has subsequently been incorporated diet is addressed through the inclusion of criteria for protein into a regulation (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/ (in which dairy products usually score well) and for fruit and foodads_new/statement). This prohibits advertising of vegetables. specified food and beverages during children’s programmes Early prototypes also gave scores for calcium, iron and n-3 and programmes for which children under the age of 16 poly-unsaturated fatty acids. These were later replaced with years form a disproportionate part of the audience. a score for protein, primarily to make scoring foods easier In the development of the model, various prototypes (protein levels are required by food labelling legislation but were compared with each other and with a set of foods calcium, iron and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid levels are categorised for their compliance with healthy eating not) but also because prototype models which gave a score guidelines. This was first done relatively informally by a for protein rather than the other three nutrients gave similar small ‘expert group’ consisting of academic nutritionists results. and representatives from industry, consumer organisations Subsequent to the adoption of the model the British Heart and public health bodies, but then more formally using an Foundation Health Promotion Research Group have further on-line survey of professional nutritionists in the UK. The investigated the validity of the model - and in particular have survey asked the nutritionists to assess 40 foods for their shown that people in the UK who have less healthy diets ‘healthiness’. The 40 foods were randomly drawn from consume more of their calories in the form of foods defined 120 different food products representative of the UK diet. as less healthy by the model. The professionals’ ratings were compared with the ratings obtained from the prototype models (http://www.food.gov.uk/ The model was developed for the regulation of food multimedia/pdfs/npreportsept05.pdf). advertising in the UK, and was tested on a range of foods in UK national databases. For use outside the UK the model The best prototype model showed a close correlation with should be assessed using relevant national food databases, the professional ratings of r = 0.80 (95% CI 0.73-0.86). In this and for international use it should be assessed on a broad model, a single score based on a set of ‘negative’ indicators range of products from different national cuisines. (energy, saturated fat, sugars and sodium) is counter- balanced by a score based on ‘positive’ indicators (protein, fibre and ‘fruit, vegetables and nuts’). The protein score was Added value and further applications of found to be a good indicator of a range of micronutrients that would otherwise merit inclusion in the model. All nutrient profiling measurement criteria were per 100 grams. The final model A clear result of using nutrient profiling as a means of included various refinements to allow for some anomalous assessing eligibility for marketing is that the profiling scheme foods: in particular, the protein score was disallowed if the becomes a driver for product reformulation. Processed score for ‘fruit, vegetables and nuts’ was too low. foods that fail to meet the criteria permitting their advertising The model generates a final single score which determines to children might benefit from reformulation, enabling the whether the food can be advertised to children. Two manufacturer to continue to advertise them. For example, threshold levels were set: one threshold for all food products most breakfast cereals promoted on children’s television are and another for beverages. high in sugar, and some are also high in salt. It is hoped that the controls in marketing may stimulate manufacturers to Note that the model uses a 100g measure rather than produce products that are lower in sugar and salt, thereby actual serving size. This is justified on the basis that the avoiding the advertising restrictions. model is designed to measure the nutritional quality of the food regardless of the way it is eaten. Using a 'per serving' Although developed for restrictions on marketing through approach would have been possible but to do so introduces broadcast media, the model also has the potential to be several difficulties, not least of which is the fact that serving used as the basis for developing regulations for non- sizes and consumption patterns are an individual matter broadcast advertising and promotion – for example for and cannot be standardised, especially across different age product placements in films or for internet advertising. groups.

Cereal FACTS 57 Appendix B

Nutrient profiling models could clearly support a wide ‘negative’ nutrients which can be offset by points for range of public health initiatives. They are already used ‘positive’ nutrients. Points are allocated on the basis of the extensively as the basis of food labelling schemes. Note nutritional content in 100g of a food or drink. however that the front-of-pack ‘traffic light’ labelling scheme There are three steps to working out the overall score for the recommended for use by the UK Food Standards Agency food or drink. uses a different nutrient profiling scheme than the one that has been developed for restrictions on marketing of foods to children. The three ‘traffic light’ colours indicate 1. Calculate the total 'A' points high, medium and low levels, for each of four nutrients: fat, saturated fats, sugars and salt/sodium. Nutrient profiling A maximum of ten points can be awarded for each ingredient could also be used to support labelling in catering outlets, (energy, saturated fat, sugar and sodium). The total ‘A’ points where, for example, traffic light signalling could help are the sum of the points scored for each ingredient. customers select healthier items from menus in advance of Total 'A' points = [points for energy] + [points for saturated ordering their food. fat] + [points for sugars] + [points for sodium] In order to prevent poor quality foods from being promoted with health claims on the basis of a single ‘good’ ingredient, Points Energy Sat Fat Total Sugar Sodium (kJ) (g) (g) (mg) nutrient profiling can be used to decide if a food is sufficiently ‘healthy’ to be allowed to carry a health claim. The 0 ≤ 335 ≤ 1 ≤ 4.5 ≤ 90 government body responsible for health claims regulation in 1 >335 >1 >4.5 >90 Australia and New Zealand (Food Standards Australia New Zealand) has adapted the UK Ofcom model for assessing 2 >670 >2 >9 >180 whether foods should be allowed to carry health claims. 3 >1005 >3 >13.5 >270 Their site includes a calculator that returns a score from the model (http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodmatters/ 4 >1340 >4 >18 >360 healthnutritionandrelatedclaims/nutrientprofilingcal3499. 5 >1675 >5 >22.5 >450 cfm). The European Commission is also in the process of developing a nutrient profiling scheme that would define 6 >2010 >6 >27 >540 which foods may carry a permitted nutrition or health claim. 7 >2345 >7 >31 >630 The use of nutrient profiling can be extended to contractual 8 >2680 >8 >36 >720 relationships: for example the quality criteria for products supplied for school meal services and institutional catering 9 >3015 >9 >40 >810 in the workplace. The health sector, armed service, prisons 10 >3350 >10 >45 >900 and elderly care could include nutritional profiling standards, which in turn could be used for contract compliance and for health impact assessments of meal service policies. If a food or drink scores 11 or more 'A' points then it cannot Fiscal policies designed to benefit public health may, if they score points for protein unless it also scores 5 points for fruit, are considered appropriate, also benefit from using nutrient vegetables and nuts. profiling as an assessment tool. One criticism made of the suggestion to impose a tax on foods such as soft drinks and snack foods is the difficulty of administering the tax 2. Calculate the total 'C' points because of the problem of defining what constitutes a soft A maximum of five points can be awarded for each drink, a snack food, etc. Nutrient profiling provides a method ingredient. The total ‘C’ points are the sum of the points for for categorising foods for taxation or subsidy. A taxation each ingredient (note that you should choose one or other of system based on nutrient profiling would also encourage the dietary fibre columns according to how the fibre content manufacturers to reformulate their recipes and adjust their of the food or beverage was calculated). product portfolio. Total 'C' points = [points for fruit, vegetables and nut content] + [points for fibre (either NSP or AOAC)] + [points for The UK Ofcom nutrient profiling model protein] in detail NB. Guidance on scoring fruit, vegetables and nut content is available from the Food Standards Agency (http://www. The model provides a single score for any given food foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutprofpguide.pdf). product, based on calculating the number of points for

Cereal FACTS 58 Appendix B

policy makers and their scientific advisers. For the purposes Points Fruit, Veg NSP Fibre or AOAC Protein & Nuts (%) (g) Fibre (g) (mg) of the advertising controls introduced in the United Kingdom:

0 ≤ 40 ≤ 0.7 ≤ 0.9 ≤ 1.6 a food is classified as 'less healthy' where it scores 4 points or more, and 1 >40 >0.7 >0.9 >1.6 a drink is classified as 'less healthy' where it scores 1 point 2 >60 >1.4 >1.9 >3.2 or more. 3 - >2.1 >2.8 >4.8 4 - >2.8 >3.7 >6.4 Frequently asked questions 5 >80 >3.5 >4.7 >8.0 There are a number of frequently asked questions about how to use the model to calculate scores for products. One of the most frequently asked questions is: ‘What counts as 3. Calculate the overall score a food and what as a drink?’ For the purpose of the model a drink is defined as 'any liquid food, excluding oils, soups, If a food scores less than 11 'A' points then the overall score condiments (vinegar, salad cream etc.) and dressings.' is calculated as follows: Answers to other questions such as ‘Should scores be Overall score = [total 'A' points] minus [total 'C' points]. calculated for products as eaten or as sold?’, ‘How do you If a food scores 11 or more 'A' points but scores 5 points for calculate the scores for foods where nutritional information fruit, vegetables and nuts then the overall score is calculated is provided by volume rather than weight?’ and worked as follows: examples are available in technical advice provided by the Food Standards Agency (http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/ Overall score = [total 'A' points] minus [total 'C' points] pdfs/techguidenutprofiling.pdf). If a food scores 11 or more 'A' points but also scores less than The model can be adjusted so that points for foods and 5 points for fruit, vegetables and nuts then the overall score is drinks fall on a scale from 1 to 100 where 1 is the least calculated without reference to the protein value, as follows: healthy and 100 is the most healthy product using a simple Overall score = [total 'A' points] minus [fibre points + fruit, formula: NUTRITION PROFILING INDEX SCORE = (-2)*OLD vegetables and nuts points only] SCORE + 70 The model can be adjusted to take account of changes The table below gives an indication of how the model in public health nutritional policy. Within the model any categorises foods. threshold can be defined according to the judgment of the

Examples of foods that can and cannot be advertised according to the UK Ofcom nutrient profiling model

Foods that can be advertised Foods that cannot be advertised (points <4 for foods; <1 for drinks) (score ≥4 for foods; score ≥1 for drinks) Wholemeal and white bread Potato crisps including low fat Muesli and wheat biscuit cereal with no added sugar Most breakfast cereals Fresh fruit Cheddar cheese, half and full fat Most nuts Butter and margarine Takeaway salads with no dressing or croutons Most sausages and burgers Most brands of baked beans Raisins and sultanas Some brands of baked oven chips Cookies Some brands of chicken nuggets Confectionary Fish fingers French fries Chicken breast Peanut butter Unsweetened fruit juice Mayonnaise, reduced and full calorie Skimmed, semi-skimmed and whole milk Most pizzas Diet cola Sweetened milkshakes Cola and other carbonated sweetened drinks

Note that some of these classifications depend on the particular recipe for the product. Source: Annex II of Rayner M, Scarborough P, Boxer A, Stockley L. Nutrient profiles: Development of final model. London: Food Standards Agency, 2005. (http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutprofr.pdf)

Cereal FACTS 59 Appendix B

Annotated reading list about the UK The Independent Review Panel finished its work in March Ofcom nutrient profile model 2009. See the report of their review for a board meeting of the UK Food Standards Agency of 25th March 2009. http:// www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa090306v2.pdf

The history of the model. At this meeting the UK Food Standards Agency accepted the finding of the Independent Review Panel ‘that the nutrient profiling model was generally scientifically robust These reports describe the development of the UK and fit for purpose’ and considered that there was no need Ofcom nutrient profiling model. to modify the model for the time being. See the minutes of 1. Rayner M, Scarborough P, Stockley L. Nutrient Profiles: this meeting. http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/ Options for definitions for use in relation to food boardmins090325.pdf promotion and children’s diets. London: Food Standards Agency, 2004. http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/ Papers on the model published in peer-reviewed nutrientprofilingfullreport.pdf journals 2. Stockley L. Report on a scientific workshop to assess the Food Standards Agency’s proposed approach to Meanwhile the BHF Health Promotion Research Group has nutrient profiling. London: Food Standards Agency, published a series of papers relating to the development of 2005. http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/ the model and its validation. These publications include the nutprofworkshop250205.pdf following: 3. Rayner M, Scarborough P, Stockley L, Boxer A. Nutrient 6. Rayner M, Scarborough P, Williams C. The origin of Profiles: Further refinement and testing of model Guideline Daily Amounts and the Food Standards SSCg3d. London: Food Standards Agency, 2005. http:// Agency’s guidance on what counts as ‘a lot’ and ‘a little’. www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/npreportsept05.pdf Public Heath Nutrition 2003: 7 (4); 549-556. 4. Rayner M, Scarborough P, Boxer A, Stockley L. Nutrient 7. Scarborough P, Rayner M, Stockley L. Developing profiles: Development of final model. London: Food nutrient profile models: a systematic approach.Public Standards Agency, 2005. http://www.food.gov.uk/ Health Nutrition 2007: 10; 330-336. multimedia/pdfs/nutprofr.pdf 8. Scarborough P, Rayner M, Stockley , Black A. Nutrition The model was agreed at a board meeting of the UK professionals’ perception of the ‘healthiness’ of Food Standards Agency held on 13th October 2005. individual foods, Public Health Nutrition 2007: 10; 346- See the minutes of this meeting. http://www.food.gov.uk/ 353. aboutus/ourboard/boardmeetings/boardmeetings2005/ 9. Scarborough P, Boxer A, Rayner M, Stockley L. Testing boardmeeting101305/boardminutes131005 nutrient profile models using data from a survey of Ofcom agreed to use the model in February 2007. See nutrition professionals, Public Health Nutrition 2007: 10; Office of communications. Television Advertising of Food and 337-345. Drink Products to Children Final statement. London: Ofcom, 10. Arambepola C, Scarborough M, Rayner M. Validating a 2007. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/foodads_ nutrient profile model,Public Health Nutrition 2008: 11; new/statement/statement.pdf 371–378. In 2007 the UK Food Standards Agency set up an 11. Arambepola C, Scarborough P, Boxer A, Rayner M. Independent Review Panel to assess ‘the effectiveness of the Defining ‘low in fat’ and ‘high in fat’ when applied to a nutrient profiling model at differentiating foods on the basis food. Public Health Nutrition 2009: 12: 341-350. of their nutrient composition’. As part of that review the BHF Health Promotion Research Group was commissioned to And other papers have discussed the model including: carry out a review of nutrient profiling models. See: Azais-Braesco, V, Goffi, C, Labouze, E. Nutrient profiling: 5. Stockley L, Rayner M, Kaur A . Nutrient profiles for use comparison and critical analysis of existing systems. Public in relation to food promotion and children’s diet: Update Health Nutrition 2006; 9(5): 613–622. of 2004 literature review. London: Food Standards Lobstein T, Davies S. Defining and labelling 'healthy' and Agency, 2008. http://www.food.gov.uk/healthiereating/ 'unhealthy' food. Public Health Nutrition 2009: 12; 331-340. advertisingtochildren/nutlab/nutprofilereview/ nutprofilelitupdatedec07

Cereal FACTS 60 Appendix C 0 255 310 379 293 293 293 255 339 317 255 767 350 267 267 625 704 255 400 448 382 500 267 267 267 267 267 389 533 364 308 170 183 291 218 464 655 100 g) Sodium (mg per 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 6.7% 3.3% 7.3% 7.3% 8.6% 7.3% 3.3% 6.7% 5.5% 7.7% 6.0% 5.8% 5.5% 5.5% 25.5% 18.2% 10.7% 18.2% 10.0% 10.0% 12.5% 18.5% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 11.1% 12.5% 10.0% 10.7% 14.5% Fiber (% of g) 7% 3% 3% 0% 15% 24% 24% 28% 24% 16% 29% 20% 20% 20% 23% 23% 16% 19% 25% 27% 21% 27% 20% 20% 20% 10% 33% 30% 27% 29% 27% 26% 27% 25% 24% 29% 20% Sugar (% of g) 0 90 85 85 85 95 95 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 85 95 140 110 140 140 230 105 200 190 140 220 260 210 150 105 160 200 160 160 120 130 360 Sodium (mg) 8 7 2 7 8 7 9 8 1 6 6 7 7 5 5 6 6 6 3 1 8 0 8 8 11 14 15 12 15 10 16 14 13 14 14 13 11 Sugar (g) 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 3 1 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 3 3 1 3 2 3 5 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 8 14 10 10 Nutrition information in 2012 Fiber (g) 90 90 110 120 120 110 120 180 100 120 200 110 110 110 120 120 220 230 220 120 220 120 110 110 120 120 190 140 110 210 210 210 210 220 230 100 200 Calories (kcal) 29 29 29 29 29 55 28 30 55 27 30 30 30 30 55 55 55 32 58 27 30 30 30 30 30 30 55 40 30 52 55 52 50 55 55 28 55 Serving size (g) 52 64 50 50 50 72 54 70 72 50 46 58 58 54 58 50 52 54 56 50 68 68 68 78 54 56 70 82 52 54 50 52 56 54 54 50 48 2012 54 46 46 70 58 50 58 58 46 50 52 54 50 56 54 82 54 54 54 54 50 48 2009 NPI scores 2006 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IWG Meets criteria* by CFBAI Approved Approved Family Family Family Family Family Adult Family Adult Target Adult Family Family Family Family Adult Family Family Adult Adult Adult Family Family Family Adult Adult Adult Family Adult Adult Child Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Family Adult Organic Bunny O's Organic Honey Bunnies Fruity Bunnies Cinnamon Roll Bunny O's Bunnies Cocoa and Vanilla High Fiber-Original Variety Flax and Granola Peanut Butter and Chocolate Crunchy Cocoa Fruit Medley Blueberry Burst Peanut Butter Cinnamon Crunch Original Almond Vanilla Multigrain Honey Rice Multigrain Original Fruit Juice Sweetened Honey Nut Cinnamon Cranberry Dark Chocolate Almond Almond Vanilla French Fruit & Nut Sugar Maple Brown Oats & Honey Cinnamon Raisin Chocolate O's Annie's Rice Crisps Brown Annie's Annie's Annie's Annie's Ultima Organic Cinnamon Crunch Corn Flakes Brand Ultima Organic Puffins Puffs Puffins Puffs Puffins Minis Shredded Puffins Oats Shredded Oats Shredded Oats Shredded Spoonfuls Shredded Puffins Puffins Puffins Hole 'n Oats Hole 'n Oats Puffins Clifford Crunch Clifford Ultima Organic Fruitful O's Granola Granola Granola Granola Granola Hearty Morning Granola Cascadian Farms Cascadian Farms Annie's Barbara's Bakery Barbara's Bakery Annie's Annie's Annie's Annie's Annie's Barbara's Bakery Cascadian Farms Barbara's Bakery Table C1: Cereal Nutrition Information C1: Cereal Table Company Barbara's Bakery Barbara's Bakery Barbara's Bakery Barbara's Bakery Barbara's Bakery Barbara's Bakery Barbara's Bakery Barbara's Bakery Barbara's Bakery Barbara's Bakery Barbara's Bakery Barbara's Bakery Barbara's Bakery Barbara's Bakery Barbara's Bakery Barbara's Bakery Barbara's Bakery Cascadian Farms Barbara's Bakery Cascadian Farms Cascadian Farms Cascadian Farms Cascadian Farms Cascadian Farms Cascadian Farms Cascadian Farms Cascadian Farms Table C1. Cereal Nutrition Information Cereal FACTS 61 Appendix C 0 442 556 481 462 444 567 667 547 593 490 383 460 467 556 633 618 509 600 774 625 574 889 574 710 630 500 600 500 571 414 464 607 571 630 391 576 571 383 567 100 g) Sodium (mg per 7.4% 7.4% 3.8% 3.7% 7.4% 9.4% 3.7% 6.7% 7.3% 3.3% 6.5% 3.1% 3.7% 6.5% 7.4% 7.4% 6.7% 7.4% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.1% 7.4% 3.0% 6.7% 3.3% 25.0% 10.0% 15.0% 10.2% 18.0% 33.3% 11.1% 10.0% 10.9% 12.8% 12.8% 10.3% 15.6% 10.7% Fiber (% of g) 3% 7% 4% 12% 37% 33% 35% 33% 23% 20% 15% 17% 37% 20% 13% 20% 10% 22% 25% 24% 27% 10% 28% 21% 11% 32% 33% 30% 30% 33% 32% 21% 32% 32% 32% 33% 28% 30% 33% 30% Sugar (% of g) 0 230 130 120 120 170 180 290 160 240 115 230 140 150 190 340 280 180 240 200 270 240 270 220 170 135 180 135 160 120 130 170 160 170 125 190 160 115 170 150 Sodium (mg) 6 9 9 9 7 4 9 4 3 6 1 8 3 9 2 5 9 8 9 9 9 6 9 9 9 9 9 1 9 10 10 10 12 14 13 10 10 10 10 10 Sugar (g) 2 1 1 3 2 5 5 1 2 9 9 3 3 6 4 1 2 1 6 1 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 5 1 3 2 1 2 13 10 Nutrition information in 2012 Fiber (g) 80 110 100 100 110 160 100 170 190 100 110 180 200 100 110 180 200 120 120 120 160 100 160 130 100 100 120 100 110 110 110 110 100 100 110 130 100 120 120 100 Calories (kcal) 27 26 27 30 52 27 49 53 27 30 50 60 27 30 30 55 55 30 31 32 47 27 47 31 27 27 30 27 28 29 28 28 28 27 32 33 28 30 30 27 Serving size (g) 46 46 48 50 68 52 54 54 42 70 54 74 52 64 58 50 50 46 52 44 52 50 56 40 46 50 46 48 46 56 48 46 46 46 52 44 70 50 42 44 2012 40 44 70 52 54 54 38 70 74 34 50 46 50 50 44 42 50 42 52 36 38 46 46 50 44 50 48 46 42 58 44 40 38 2009 NPI scores 36 70 34 50 44 32 50 44 50 36 36 44 50 58 40 34 36 2006 Yes Yes Yes IWG Meets criteria* Yes Yes Yes Yes by CFBAI Approved Approved Target Child Child Child Family Adult Adult Adult Adult Family Adult Adult Adult Adult Child Family Adult Adult Family Family Family Family Family Child Child Family Family Family Child Family Family Family Family Family Family Family Family Family Family Family Child Variety Brownie crunch Brownie (Regular) Sprinkles Honey Clusters Whole Grain Crunch Fruit & Nut Crunch Honey Crunch Frosted Shredded Wheat Shredded Frosted Caramel Delight 80 Calories Honey Squares Corn Honey Nut Multi-Bran Rice Wheat (Regular) Crunch Toast Frosted Cinnamon Yogurt Burst Strawberry Yogurt Chocolate Honey Nut Multigrain Multigrain Peanut Butter Oat Cluster Crunch/Crunch Fruity Chocolate Cinnamon Burst Frosted (Regular) Apple Cinnamon Banana Nut (Regular) Brand Honey Nut O's Cocoa Puffs Cookie Crisp Cookie Crisp Count Chocula Multi-Grain Squares Fiber One Dora the Explorer Curves Curves Curves Purely O's Purely Fiber One Fiber One Fiber One Raisin Bran Basic 4 Boo Berry Chex Chex Chex Chex Chex Crunch Cinnamon Toast Crunch Cinnamon Toast Chex Cheerios Chex Cheerios Cheerios Cheerios Cheerios Cheerios Cheerios Cheerios Cheerios Cheerios Cheerios Cheerios Cocoa Puffs Company Cascadian Farms General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills Cascadian Farms General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills Cascadian Farms General Mills General Mills General Mills Cascadian Farms General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills Table C1. Cereal Nutrition Information Cereal FACTS 62 Appendix C 0 9 0 448 463 258 245 242 245 236 208 382 350 189 264 245 576 774 509 600 515 576 630 571 208 194 469 552 170 434 633 563 255 704 300 227 283 163 255 100 g) Sodium (mg per 7.4% 6.7% 7.3% 3.0% 6.5% 7.0% 6.1% 9.1% 7.4% 3.6% 8.3% 8.1% 3.4% 7.5% 9.4% 3.1% 9.1% 12.1% 15.2% 15.2% 10.9% 12.7% 22.6% 20.0% 46.7% 15.1% 15.1% 15.7% 10.0% 10.2% 10.0% 14.5% 10.9% 11.1% 12.0% 12.7% 10.0% 19.2% 17.6% Fiber (% of g) 5% 0% 8% 22% 20% 15% 22% 15% 18% 18% 19% 25% 25% 23% 20% 30% 32% 25% 10% 21% 18% 37% 36% 27% 31% 29% 34% 26% 32% 17% 31% 25% 16% 15% 16% 20% 13% 12% 20% Sugar (% of g) 0 5 0 85 80 90 85 260 125 135 135 130 110 210 105 100 140 125 190 240 290 180 170 190 170 160 125 120 230 160 230 190 180 140 190 150 125 170 130 Sodium (mg) 3 6 6 5 5 0 3 7 6 5 4 4 9 8 6 9 12 10 10 10 14 13 12 10 10 10 14 10 10 16 19 14 10 14 17 10 14 11 10 Sugar (g) 7 2 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 8 8 1 2 4 3 2 3 2 1 5 5 5 1 4 5 3 1 8 3 6 6 7 6 5 9 12 11 14 10 Nutrition information in 2012 Fiber (g) 60 210 100 120 120 200 120 230 220 160 190 200 180 130 170 120 210 110 120 120 110 110 230 230 180 120 200 160 100 120 190 100 180 190 210 210 180 140 190 Calories (kcal) 58 27 30 33 55 33 55 55 30 53 53 53 33 55 31 57 30 33 33 27 28 60 62 49 29 53 53 30 32 55 27 50 55 55 60 55 52 51 51 Serving size (g) 72 54 74 72 70 72 56 56 78 72 58 58 44 56 42 52 56 54 52 42 42 58 56 48 38 70 52 52 42 58 52 74 76 70 72 76 78 70 70 2012 72 82 70 58 58 54 78 72 70 58 54 54 36 54 48 50 36 36 58 56 48 34 52 52 38 52 72 50 78 74 2009 NPI scores 78 26 32 46 44 34 36 48 50 50 34 52 52 34 52 2006 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IWG Meets criteria* Yes Yes Yes by CFBAI Approved Approved Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Target Adult Adult Adult Adult Family Adult Family Adult Family Family Family Child Child Adult Adult Adult Child Adult Adult Adult Child Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Family Adult Adult Adult Adult Indigo Morning 7 Whole Grains Nuggets Variety Original (Bran) Oat Flakes & Wild Blueberry Cinnamon Oat Warm 7 Whole Grains Honey Puffs Honey Toasted Oat Honey Toasted Mt Medley Granola Cocoa Beach Raisin Bran Clusters Original Original Honey Almond Flax (Regular) Berry Honey (Regular) Chocolate Crunchy Almond Hearty Raisin Honey Almond Flax Clusters Raisin Bran Whole Grain Fuel 7 Whole Grains Flakes Island Vanilla Autumn Wheat Cinnamon Harvest Original Cinnamon Crumble Toasted Berry Crumble Toasted Kashi Organic Cereal Kashi Organic Kashi Nuggets Brand Fiber One Kashi Heart to Kashi Heart to Kashi Honey Puffs Kashi Heart to Kashi Granola Kashi Granola Franken Berry Fiber One Kashi Good Friends Kashi GoLean Crunch! Kashi GoLean Crunch! Golden Grahams Kix Kix Kix Lucky Charms Lucky Charms Oatmeal Crisp Raisin Nut Bran Reese's Puffs Total Total Total Trix Wheaties Wheaties Kashi Flakes Kashi (Shredded Wheat Type) Kashi (Shredded Kashi (Shredded Wheat Type) Kashi (Shredded Kashi Golden Goodness Kashi (Shredded Wheat Type) Kashi (Shredded Kashi GoLean Kashi GoLean Crisp! Kashi GoLean Crisp! Kashi Kashi Company General Mills Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi General Mills General Mills Kashi Kashi Kashi General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi Table C1. Cereal Nutrition Information Cereal FACTS 63 Appendix C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 407 417 450 449 441 464 227 700 258 531 724 533 419 383 255 250 148 391 714 467 379 408 466 306 377 438 759 484 435 352 484 100 g) Sodium (mg per 7.4% 6.1% 6.8% 5.3% 3.1% 3.2% 3.3% 6.1% 6.7% 3.7% 9.4% 3.6% 3.3% 6.9% 3.4% 0.0% 3.2% 7.4% 6.5% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% 11.1% 10.9% 20.0% 16.7% 11.1% 10.7% 12.7% 43.3% 32.3% 17.2% 10.3% 10.0% 18.4% 10.3% 12.2% 18.9% 28.1% Fiber (% of g) 0% 22% 18% 22% 22% 22% 22% 23% 20% 20% 22% 22% 43% 20% 27% 19% 28% 17% 21% 27% 39% 40% 29% 28% 56% 31% 11% 37% 48% 24% 41% 31% 23% 22% 14% 32% 32% 37% 39% Sugar (% of g) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 80 40 95 110 125 135 220 260 130 125 210 170 210 160 130 115 125 150 125 200 140 110 200 135 150 200 140 220 150 135 150 Sodium (mg) 6 7 6 0 8 9 5 6 8 3 7 4 10 12 12 12 12 11 13 12 11 11 12 12 12 14 17 15 10 11 14 12 12 15 12 10 10 10 12 Sugar (g) 6 6 6 6 2 6 5 6 1 3 4 3 1 7 5 6 3 1 1 6 3 4 1 1 3 1 2 9 9 3 6 1 0 1 2 2 13 10 10 Nutrition information in 2012 Fiber (g) 70 80 90 80 190 190 190 190 100 100 100 190 180 220 100 120 210 190 110 120 120 200 190 230 100 100 120 110 110 170 110 110 200 110 170 120 120 100 120 Calories (kcal) 55 55 55 54 27 30 30 55 19 49 59 30 28 32 55 29 31 54 30 31 30 58 49 60 27 28 32 30 29 49 32 29 49 29 53 31 31 27 31 Serving size (g) 74 74 74 74 56 54 56 74 82 56 56 50 44 46 70 52 72 74 52 42 44 74 54 56 48 50 50 42 44 54 56 42 40 46 54 38 46 50 46 2012 70 70 70 56 70 52 40 44 52 72 74 46 40 74 54 54 46 52 36 42 38 38 40 48 44 2009 NPI scores 52 38 72 46 34 74 54 54 44 52 40 42 36 36 40 48 2006 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IWG Meets criteria* Yes Yes Yes Yes by CFBAI Approved Approved Family Family Family Family Target Adult Family Family Family Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Child Adult Adult Family Child Adult Adult Family Adult Adult Family Adult Child Child Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Frosted/Mixed Berry Touch of Fruit Berry Touch Frosted/Mixed Frosted/ Strawberry Delight Frosted/ Frosted/ Maple & Brown Sugar Maple & Brown Frosted/ Frosted/ Cinnamon Streusel Frosted/ Variety Simply Maize 7 Whole Grains Puffs Berry Blossoms Kashi Honey Sunshine Frosted/ Blueberry Muffin Frosted/ Nut Cluster Crunch- Maple Nut Cluster Crunch- Honey Almond Complete Wheat Flakes (Regular) Black Currants and Walnuts Original Frosted/ Bite Size Frosted/ (Regular) Frosted/ Big Bite Frosted/ without Raisins with Raisins (Regular) Reduced Sugar (Regular) Cinnamon Oat Crunch Marshmallows Caramel Pecan Clusters (Regular) Caramel Nut Golden Honey Nut Roasted Nut and Honey Maple Syrup Crunch Berry Yogurt in the Middle Mini-Wheats Mini-Wheats Mini-Wheats Mini-Wheats Brand Cereal Kashi Organic Kashi Puffs Kashi Squares Kashi Squares Kashi Strawberry Fields Mini-Wheats Bear Naked Cereal Cinnabon Bear Naked Cereal All-Bran All-Bran Apple Jacks Kashi U All-Bran Mini-Wheats Honey Smacks Corn Flakes Cocoa Krispies Mini-Wheats Low Fat Granola Low Fat Granola Cracklin Oat Bran Corn Pops (or Pops) Frosted Flakes Frosted Frosted Flakes Frosted Fiber Plus Antioxidants Loops Froot Fiber Plus Antioxidants Loops Froot Crunchy Nut Crunchy Nut Crunchy Nut Fiber Plus Antioxidants Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Company Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi Kashi Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kashi Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Table C1. Cereal Nutrition Information Cereal FACTS 64 Appendix C 0 0 0 333 450 383 317 345 633 273 345 291 417 382 433 433 382 255 733 356 377 576 367 600 567 560 233 450 710 467 581 633 438 221 483 379 613 567 533 400 100 g) Sodium (mg per 6.7% 3.3% 6.7% 3.3% 9.1% 9.1% 0.0% 9.1% 3.3% 7.5% 3.0% 0.0% 3.3% 0.0% 6.0% 8.3% 3.3% 0.0% 9.7% 9.4% 9.6% 9.7% 6.7% 6.7% 23.3% 12.7% 14.5% 10.9% 10.0% 10.0% 14.5% 10.9% 10.9% 10.9% 11.9% 10.0% 10.0% 10.3% 17.2% 10.0% Fiber (% of g) 0% 3% 6% 7% 7% 30% 30% 27% 40% 18% 17% 24% 22% 18% 10% 11% 23% 23% 22% 20% 22% 25% 13% 31% 36% 12% 40% 30% 28% 28% 43% 13% 27% 29% 23% 31% 28% 29% 30% 23% Sugar (% of g) 0 0 0 95 100 135 115 190 190 150 190 160 125 210 130 130 210 140 220 210 200 190 110 180 170 280 140 135 220 140 180 190 140 115 140 110 190 170 160 120 Sodium (mg) 9 9 8 5 3 6 7 7 0 4 4 1 9 4 8 9 7 3 8 2 9 9 2 7 12 10 13 12 10 12 12 11 14 18 19 12 14 17 13 10 Sugar (g) 1 2 1 5 7 7 8 5 0 6 3 3 8 6 6 6 5 1 7 4 1 0 1 0 3 5 1 0 3 3 3 3 5 3 5 3 3 2 2 2 Nutrition information in 2012 Fiber (g) 120 120 130 220 100 210 190 210 120 230 110 110 190 190 190 190 200 110 190 190 130 110 110 120 180 220 120 120 110 120 110 120 190 100 100 110 110 110 120 115 Calories (kcal) 30 30 30 55 30 55 55 55 30 55 30 30 55 55 55 55 55 30 59 53 33 30 30 30 50 60 30 31 30 31 30 32 52 29 29 31 30 30 30 30 Serving size (g) 48 54 44 56 52 56 58 58 58 58 54 54 82 54 74 74 58 48 54 50 52 38 64 38 48 56 40 44 52 36 48 50 76 50 70 48 48 68 54 54 2012 44 54 50 58 58 82 56 54 50 46 48 44 32 38 48 56 38 50 48 32 46 44 70 40 46 56 54 2009 NPI scores 54 50 46 48 38 48 56 38 50 44 72 40 46 2006 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IWG Meets criteria* Yes by CFBAI Approved Approved Family Family Family Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Target Family Family Family Family Adult Adult Adult Adult Child Child Child Child Adult Adult Family Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Family Family Koala Crisp Leapin Lemurs Peanut Butter Panda Puffs Maple Pecan Crunch Multibran Flakes Pumpkin Raisin Crunch Raisin Bran Flakes Red Berry Crunch Crunchy Maple Crunchy Vanilla Variety Bite Size Unfrosted/ Little Bites- Chocolate Little Bites- Cinnamon Roll Little Bites- Frosted/Original (Regular) Crunch (Regular) Krispies Frosted Gluten Free Original Antioxidants Toasted Oat Toasted (Regular) Blueberry Chocolatey Delight Cinnamon Pecan Fruit & Yogurt Low-fat Granola Multigrain Oats and Honey Protein Plus Protein Red Berries Vanilla Almond Vanilla Amazon Frosted Flakes Amazon Frosted Gorilla Munch Envirokidz Organic Envirokidz Organic Envirokidz Organic Envirokidz Flax Plus Flax Plus Flax Plus Flax Plus Flax Plus Fruit Juice Sweetened Corn Flakes Heritage Crunch Sunrise Sunrise Brand Mini-Wheats Mini-Wheats Mini-Wheats Mini-Wheats Mueslix Product Raisin Bran Raisin Bran Rice Krispies Rice Krispies Rice Krispies Rice Krispies Smart Smart Start Smorz Special K Special K Special K Special K Special K Special K Special K Special K Special K Special K Crispy Rice Cereal Envirokidz Organic Envirokidz Envirokidz Organic Envirokidz Nature's Path Nature's Path Nature's Path Nature's Nature's Path Nature's Nature's Path Nature's Path Nature's Nature's Path Nature's Nature's Path Nature's Nature's Path Nature's Nature's Path Nature's Nature's Path Nature's Path Nature's Company Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Kellogg Path Nature's Path Nature's Nature's Path Nature's Nature's Path Nature's Table C1. Cereal Nutrition Information Cereal FACTS 65 Appendix C 0 36 93 136 127 345 218 309 600 400 418 382 291 600 433 267 643 417 545 600 500 431 467 346 422 500 483 403 304 140 563 296 633 633 667 424 382 240 100 g) Sodium (mg per 5.5% 5.5% 9.1% 7.3% 3.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 9.1% 5.5% 6.7% 7.1% 6.7% 5.5% 5.5% 6.7% 3.8% 6.3% 6.7% 3.4% 3.7% 6.5% 7.1% 7.0% 3.1% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 7.7% 14.5% 13.3% 26.7% 16.7% 12.1% 10.3% 13.6% Fiber (% of g) 9% 24% 27% 13% 18% 16% 18% 20% 22% 20% 31% 13% 27% 27% 36% 20% 23% 22% 25% 17% 14% 20% 27% 19% 20% 21% 26% 52% 21% 25% 31% 30% 37% 37% 37% 32% 29% 23% Sugar (% of g) 0 75 70 80 20 25 80 80 190 120 170 330 220 230 210 160 330 130 180 125 300 290 180 125 140 180 135 150 140 125 170 180 190 190 180 250 210 125 Sodium (mg) 7 9 7 8 8 7 5 6 5 4 6 6 6 6 8 8 13 15 10 10 11 12 11 17 10 12 14 14 14 12 14 10 11 11 10 19 16 12 Sugar (g) 3 3 5 4 8 2 3 3 3 5 3 2 4 2 2 3 3 7 8 5 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 4 4 1 2 0 0 0 8 2 4 Nutrition information in 2012 Fiber (g) 90 240 240 210 240 190 230 240 230 240 230 220 110 100 110 110 220 240 200 100 110 120 200 130 120 120 120 110 220 250 130 110 120 120 110 190 220 210 Calories (kcal) 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 30 30 28 30 55 55 58 30 30 29 30 52 32 30 29 31 27 56 57 32 27 30 30 27 59 55 52 Serving size (g) 58 56 70 58 70 46 54 54 54 52 56 54 56 44 54 52 70 70 74 54 58 54 54 54 54 48 54 46 58 58 40 50 26 26 28 50 48 56 2012 56 76 46 54 54 52 40 46 54 58 50 58 54 52 54 52 46 54 58 38 38 48 46 48 2009 NPI scores 70 70 50 58 50 52 48 44 36 24 24 48 2006 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IWG Meets criteria* Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes by CFBAI Approved Approved Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Family Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Target Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Family Adult Adult Child Child Child Child Child Family Adult Adult Cherry Almond Granola Vanilla French Goji Berry Golden Honey Granola Hearty Raisin Bran Mango Passion Maple Pecan Raspberry Ginger Almond Vanilla Spice Walnut Wild Berry Crisp Flake n Strawberry Honey Flax Flakes Almond Vanilla Apple Cinnamon Blueberry Pomegranate (Regular) Variety Cinnamon Fiber Flakes Flakes Honey Roasted Raisin Medley with Almonds with Cinnamon Clusters with Pecan Bunches with Real Strawberries with Vanillla Clusters with Vanillla Honey Roasted (Regular) Boulders Chocolate Peanut Butter Cocoa Fruity Marshmallow Blueberry Morning Maple Pecan Crunch Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Alpha Bits Newman's Own Sweet Enough Newman's Own Sweet Enough Newman's Own Sweet Enough Bran Flakes Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Grape Nuts Brand Newman's Own Sweet Enough Golden Crisp Grape Nuts Honey Bunches of Oats Honey Bunches of Oats Honey Bunches of Oats Honey Bunches of Oats Honey Bunches of Oats Honey Bunches of Oats Honey Bunches of Oats Honey Bunches of Oats Just Honey Comb Pebbles Pebbles Pebbles Pebbles Raisin Bran Selects Selects Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Post Post Newman's Own Newman's Own Newman's Own Post Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Peace Cereal Post Company Newman's Own Newman's Own Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Table C1. Cereal Nutrition Information Cereal FACTS 66 Appendix C 0 0 0 0 59 52 51 368 339 339 236 339 237 219 288 245 102 383 741 463 656 741 731 500 469 469 281 281 100 g) Sodium (mg per 8.9% 9.8% 8.9% 9.1% 8.9% 9.6% 9.1% 3.3% 3.7% 3.7% 3.1% 3.7% 3.8% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 10.5% 10.4% 10.7% 12.2% 15.3% 11.9% 10.4% 12.8% 10.2% 18.8% 18.8% 10.2% Fiber (% of g) 0% 0% 0% 16% 16% 25% 16% 25% 21% 21% 16% 19% 25% 15% 24% 20% 40% 44% 41% 47% 33% 42% 19% 25% 25% 22% 19% 27% Sugar (% of g) 0 0 0 0 30 25 60 90 90 25 210 190 190 130 190 140 105 150 135 115 200 125 210 200 190 160 150 150 Sodium (mg) 9 9 9 0 0 9 8 0 9 6 8 8 7 6 13 14 10 11 12 13 12 12 12 12 11 15 11 13 Sugar (g) 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 9 5 7 5 5 5 6 6 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 6 6 5 Nutrition information in 2012 Fiber (g) 210 210 210 210 210 200 170 200 210 240 180 210 210 160 220 200 120 110 110 130 110 110 120 120 120 110 110 200 Calories (kcal) 57 56 51 56 55 48 49 59 56 59 48 52 55 47 59 56 30 27 27 32 27 26 32 32 32 32 32 49 Serving size (g) 58 70 70 70 58 70 82 82 70 56 58 58 58 82 72 74 44 28 38 30 32 28 54 52 52 58 58 58 2012 58 54 46 56 50 70 82 56 58 58 58 82 68 44 44 32 30 54 52 52 2009 NPI scores 54 46 54 82 82 56 54 56 82 70 42 26 40 30 54 52 2006 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IWG Meets criteria* by CFBAI Approved Approved Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Target Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Family Adult Family Family Family Family Family Family Family Family Family Family Adult Brown Sugar Brown Oats & Honey Raisins Cinnamon Low-fat Oats & Honey Almonds Spoon Size Original Spoon Size Wheat 'n Bran Variety Banana Nut Crunch Golden Maple Cranberry Almond Crunch Crunchy Pecans Raisin Date Pecan Original Spoon Size Honey Nut Spoon Size Lightly Frosted (Regular) Chocolatey Crunch OOPS! All Berries Peanut Butter Crunch with Crunchberries (Regular) Cinnamon Sugar Maple & Brown Apple Cinnamon Strawberry Apple Cranberry Almond Oat Bran Cold Cereal Oatmeal Squares Natural Granola Oatmeal Squares Natural Granola Natural Granola Shredded Wheat Shredded Wheat Shredded Crisp Waffle Brand Grains Selects Great Oatmeal Squares Selects Great Grains Selects Great Selects Great Grains Selects Great Selects Great Grains Selects Great Shredded Wheat Shredded Wheat Shredded Shredded Wheat Shredded Cap'n Crunch Cap'n Crunch Cap'n Crunch Cap'n Crunch Cap'n Crunch Life Life Life Life Crunchtime Life Crunchtime Natural Granola Quaker Quaker Quaker Quaker Quaker Quaker Post Post Post Company Post Quaker Post Post Post Post Post Post Quaker Quaker Quaker Quaker Quaker Quaker Quaker Quaker Quaker Quaker Quaker Quaker Table C1. Cereal Nutrition Information Cereal FACTS 67 Appendix C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 174 868 106 332 697 177 611 650 120 2011 1,211 1,346 2,421 1,090 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 80 76 Children Children 358 589 599 749 102 100 616 614 2008 equivalents (2-11 years) 6,808 7,909 8,390 Banner ad GRP 8 1 2 5 0 1 0 4 1 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 21 13 13 38 27 2011 4 0 3 4 4 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17 231 289 293 285 2008 2,540 2,636 2,559 Adolescents (12-17 years) 0 1 2 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 84 19 12 14 51 46 2011 0 5 5 2 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Website GRP equivalents Website 14 29 Children Children 262 328 765 744 2008 (2-11 years) 2,876 2,985 2,898 2011 Adults 2008 (18-49 years) 2011 2008 Adolescents (12-17 years) TV GRPs 2011 Children Children 2008 (6-11 years) 2011 Data available upon request 2008 (2-5 years) Preschoolers Preschoolers 2011 2008 Other media 2011 TV Advertising spending ($000) 2008 and Honey Nut) Honey Nut Cheerios Mini-Wheats Cheerios (regular) Brand Cinnamon Toast Crunch Cinnamon Toast Rice and Cocoa Krispies Froot Loops Froot Chex Frosted Flakes Frosted Reese's Puffs Trix Lucky Charms Cheerios (except regular Cheerios (except regular Corn Pops Pebbles Cocoa Puffs Honeycomb Envirokidz Organic Envirokidz Cookie Crunch Cap'n Crunch Life Kix Puffins Cookie Crisp Apple Jacks General Mills Kellogg General Mills Table C2. Advertising spending and total advertising exposure for children and adolescents for children C2. Advertising spending and total advertising exposure Table Company General Mills Kellogg Kellogg General Mills Kellogg General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills Kellogg Post General Mills Post Nature's Path Nature's Kellogg Quaker Quaker General Mills Barbara's Bakery General Mills Kellogg Table C2. Advertising spending and total advertising exposure for children adolescents Cereal FACTS 68 Appendix C 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 8 1 2 36 64 23 17 31 57 15 2011 (6-17 years) 0 8 7 0 2 8 0 4 0 4 39 19 526 540 763 611 Blacks 2008 6,955 6,752 6,701 (2-17 years) 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 63 14 47 18 37 49 18 Website GRP equivalents Website 2011 Hispanics (6-17 years) 2011 2008 Adolescents (12-17 years) 2011 Children 2008 (6-11 years) TV GRPs: Black youth 2011 (2-5 years) 2008 Preschoolers Preschoolers 2011 2008 Adolescents (12-17 years) Data available upon request 2011 Children 2008 (6-11 years) TV GRPs: Spanish-language 2011 (2-5 years) 2008 Preschoolers Preschoolers 2011 2008 Spanish-language Advertising spending and Honey Nut) Honeycomb Life Apple Jacks Cookie Crisp Pebbles Corn Pops Cocoa Puffs Lucky Charms Reese's Puffs Trix Rice and Cocoa Krispies Chex Froot Loops Froot Crunch Cinnamon Toast Cheerios (except regular Cheerios (except regular Frosted Flakes Frosted Mini-Wheats Brand Honey Nut Cheerios Cheerios (regular) Post Quaker Kellogg General Mills Post Kellogg General Mills General Mills General Mills General Mills Kellogg General Mills Kellogg General Mills General Mills Kellogg Kellogg Company General Mills General Mills Table C3. Advertising spending and media exposure for Hispanic and black youth C3. Advertising spending and media exposure Table Table C3. Advertising spending and media exposure for Hispanic black youth Cereal FACTS 69